Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Thursday Arts

Miss California Might Be Dumb, But Is She Really a Homophobe?

20090421__misscaliforniaquestion1_gallery

Perhaps you’ve heard of Godwin’s Law, a geek’s theorem about Internet conversations that states, as a “discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″, which is to say, just about every controversy online eventually leads to the Hitler card being played.

We’d like to add a new term to the lexicon: Prejean’s Law, named after “marriage should be between a man and a woman” Miss California Carrie Prejean, who is now the most famous Miss America contestant since the last one that did something that touched on a social issue of the day. An instant celebrity, Prejean’s comments about gay marriage have transformed the discussion into a three-ring circus of celebrities, douchebag blogger wannabe celebs and Miley Ray Cyrus’ Twitter. Prejean’s Law, then states– The national conversation about a social issue is meaningful up until the point it gets a national beauty pageant contestant in trouble– after that, all bets are off.

It’s not that we’re not mildly, reflexively outraged and have though to ourselves, “Hey, why not make this a teaching moment?” and we even sort of side with Perez Hilton for making Prejean’s comments into a cause d’affair, but this week it sort of feels that our little civil rights struggle has packed up for college, left us at home and the first call we get from it is at a drunken sorority party where we hear it go, “Woo-hoo! I’m so fucking drunk, Dads!”

Maybe this is snobbery. We would like to see the gay civil rights debate occur in the streets and in public forums and you know, be ready made for historical patina later on, so the idea that the gay marriage debate is now centered on a feud between Ms. California and Perez Hilton is a bit of a bummer, if for no reason, but it makes the issue seem frivolous– the sort of thing that two airheads would get in a tussle over.

At the same time, beyond simple snobbery is the fact that images do matter and even from a short remove, this debate is a ludicrous one. Prejean’s certainly not the first person to state that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and Hilton’s decision to call her a “bitch” is ratings worthy, but I’m not terribly sure it does any good for the gay community.

Here in brief is the case against thoughtless, knee-jerk outrage: It’s incredibly easy to call anyone you dislike a homophobe and a bigot. Heck, we use the phrases fairly liberally ourselves from time to time, but when the conversation ends at “You are a bad person”, you’re only making yourself feel better and further solidifying the impression that the differences you have are intractable.

Essentially, this is what happened with the abortion debate in this country. Roe v. Wade flash froze opinions to the point that anyone who was pro-choice was a baby murderer and anyone who is pro-life wants to have state-controlled wombs. Here’s a shocker: Most social issues are complex. They don’t distill down into easy talking points nor do they have obvious permanent solutions.

So, this week’s massive dumbing down of the marriage debate may very well have an impact on the long-range prospects of gay civil rights. The less we engage in conversation and the more we simply hurl barbs at our opponents, the more entrenched everyone gets in their own positions. This strikes us as a pretty stupid strategy, since so many moderates and traditional conservatives have shown a willingness to change once they understand the issue better.

Certainly, the Fred Phelps’ of the world don’t deserve the time of day, but does the same hold true for Carrie Prejean? Is she truly ‘homophobic’ or just uneducated? It might be the tiara and sing-song cadence, but she doesn’t come off as an especially hate-filled person, she comes off as an ignorant and uniformed person– That is, she really is a good “Miss California” in that she’s like many Californians who senselessly voted for Prop. 8, based on beliefs they clearly had never examined before. I know it’s hard to be a grown-up sometimes. It’s easy to hear someone say something you find offensive and write them off, but so long as there are more straight people than gay people, some of them are going to have to be won over– and that takes time, patience and an open-ear, not a high-pitched hysterical yell.

—Japhy Grant

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Apr 23, 2009
Tagged: , , ,

  • 202 Comments
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      I guess the answer to your question depends on whether a person who believes the races should not marry can be consider a racist? This is not a theorectical question. In my homeown in Virginia well into the 1990s, I knew people who believed this. Yes, I grew up in a bum-fuck America. It was not all like Sweet Home Alabama with Reese Witherspoon.

      Should I now apologize to them for calling them racist for holding these views since they are not sophisticates? I mean if we are really going to allow bigots to move the Overton Window such that discrimination is no longer bigotry why not fully go full circle?

      Oh, and, by the way, the marriage debate has always been dumbed down. Have you not been listening to the arguments being used to block marriage equality. Who do you think they are talking to? They aren’t talking to hipsters in Williamsburg. They are talking to folks in my hometown that voted 70 percent for George Bush in 200 and 2004, and about that same number in 2008 for McCain.

      If you think you are having a sophisticated conversation, you don’t understand your opponent. They are appealing to base instincts. You are not going to change that since that’s as American as apple pie. You’d better start talking to the Miss America watchin’, Walmart shoppin’, “church goin’ after Saturday where they got drunk and screwed like dogs in heat” crowd. These are the people who will be the hardest to win over. But, if you want to reach “middle America” they are the pie you need to win.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PatrickD
      PatrickD

      @The Gay Numbers:
      Thank you. I keep hearing that old song, “We aren’t Bigots, we just think you’re not as good as us as well as icky” as an excuse. ‘Course, you bring up stuff like the old Pure Blood laws and certain folks get ticked because you’re treating GLBT Oppression like REAL ones against REAL people. It’s sad that a non-Euro person gets their Decentness “yanked” when they’re GLBT…..

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • steve1
      steve1

      Miss paris hilton, I mean PEREZ Hilton blew it the moment He called her a B or C or whatever. It was very juvenile of him to react that way. It upgraded Miss CA, made her look like the mature one who is not afraid of speaking the truth. Perez’s little outburst did NOT win us any supporters, it just made the 60% of the country that already hate us JUST hate us more. Try reading all blogs even the liberal ones, heck even the Huff Post. MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT PEREZ was an ass for cursing a girl out and the girl was mature for not calling Peres names like the F word also. Wait and see, she’s gonna be famous, heck Elizabeth Hesselback did!.I just don’t get why people hate gay folks so much. Most gay folks are the most tolerant nicest people you’ll eve meet.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jose
      jose

      OK steve1. I agree with you for the most part. except the part that ” gay people are the most tolerant nicest people” You lost me there. As an hispanic guy living in SF, most gay MEN are as racist as the rednecks, thats honestly from my own experience. I mean most guys want to F**** me because they imagine I must rock coz I’m a person of color or whatever, other than that I get alot of the ” illegal immigrants have more rights than me” BS. Pretty annoying. And Perez does not represent me or my views. He is an idiot IMO.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anthony
      anthony

      If you want to know that liberals are intolerant of LGBT people just like the right wing, try reading the gay articles at The Huffington post or any other liberal blog regarding this Miss CA issue. People are tearing PEREZ HILTON down like he did something wrong.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Audrina
      Audrina

      @steve1: YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH.
      But I think Perez is human, and his reaction was a human one. After prop 8 most of us are still really pissed off.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jim
      jim

      Re: the question in the headline, who the fuck cares? Her 15 minutes should’ve been up 4 days ago.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • marie
      marie

      How is she a homophobe? Just because she doesn’t agree with gay marriage doesn’t mean she hates gays!

      It was a loaded question from the start, and she answered it. Perez was trying to push his political agenda into a BEAUTY PAGEANT. It’s sad it shows how much of a bigot he is just because her views don’t go with his.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dickie
      Dickie

      Letting someone off the hook for never challenging the beliefs they were taught as a child is not accetable. Should that person be approached differently than and outright bigot? Sure, but you have to know that regardless that person hates you.

      Personally, I think that playing this whole “she’s just a Miss America contestant, they’re all dumb and should be treated like puppies” is insulting to the debate that has occurre because of it and to other Miss America hopefuls. If we can’t hold people accountable for their word because they are pecieved to be idiots, then what’s the point of discussion at all? And this girl must be an idiot, right? I mean, he’s pretty and and beauty pageant contestant, they’re all stupid.

      Yes, she is probably more ignorant than a purposeful bigot like Dobson and friends, but a spade is still a spade.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey
      Qjersey

      i dont hate gay people but hetero is just better!

      not homophobic, but heterosexist!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BOMA
      BOMA

      OF COURSE she is. So is the POTUS, saint Hillary Clinton and her HUBBY Mr. DADT, 3/4 of the politicians and way more than half the country. and oh most ethnic minorities too. So Perez should curse all the above groups too. But you know what? It doesn’t matter coz wether they like it or not, eventually gay marriage will be legal in every state! Yah, eat your heart out O’reilly, I’m pushing it down your throat!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mimi da Biche
      Mimi da Biche

      @The Gay Numbers: Well said. Very well said. I am from a little small hick town in the midwest that sits on the Mississippi and trys it’s darndest to pass for a big city, St. Louis.

      I escaped back in the 1970’s and have NEVER looked back fondly at nothing there. If the oppressive heat does not kill you in the summer the city earnings taxes will.

      I went back there for the first time in 22 years in 2000 and could not believe that police (undercover) STILL go into the gay bar(s) looking for “lewd” conduct. That CAN include two men kissing, believe it or not. Whatever it takes to justify keeping the police budget at what it presently is I suppose. I knew things had not change when the lead story one evening was a bus driver had been arrested for giving a nude magazine (girls) to a bunch of 11th grade boys. Yes, it was the lead story for two days. Really exciting for a “big city” huh?

      As for Bimbo and her thoughts and opinions she is not fooling me. She knows cutting ribbons outside of customerless auto/truck showrooms (banks are still not giving credit) will not get her non-speaking guest appearances on Desperate Housewives so she went for broke. Go with the lost and desperate.

      Who is more desperate for a new spokesperson bimbo (Ann Coulter is too polarizing and her ratings are falling) than the GOP? She knew they were looking for a blond and someone younger to step in and the job comes with far more perks than are offered over at the Ms. California pageant.

      Or who knows. Maybe she reads Queerty and took a page out of Michael Lucas’ book about how to sell yourself through controversial statements. Hopefully she will leave before she too starts looking like a fool.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      Perez wasn’t wrong to ask the question, I saw on the news that all the contestants were asked questions about things that are currently in the news (eg. the bank bailout), so why not a questions about gay marriage? What was wrong was his reaction afterwards. If he had just said he was disappointed with her answer that would have been great, but to rant about her being a dumb bitch, and then say he wished he’d called her something worse, changes it from her looking bad to him looking bad.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Helga von Onrstein
      Helga von Onrstein

      @anthony: Yes we are all pissed off about what happened with Prop 8 but when you KNOW you are a celebrity and for the most part representing the community as a whole you must remember there are community members out there who do frown on Jerry Springer type tactics.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      @marie:

      Get real. As another has said, if the contestant had said that she did not believe in interracial marriage, wouldn’t most people think that were a racist?

      Hilton was wrong to call her a b*tch.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BillyBob Thornton
      BillyBob Thornton

      Homophobe, probably not, bigoted, definately!

      Homophobe is consistently misused because people don’t understand the definition.

      Homophobe: unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      At least it’s got people talking about marriage equality.

      @anthony:

      try reading the gay articles at The Huffington post or any other liberal blog regarding this Miss CA issue

      Anthony, could you post some links? I’d like to read these.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      The operative word here is “think”: Are people who THINK that marriage should be gender discordant homophobes? Are people who THINK that marriage should be racially concordant racist?

      My feeling is: People who THINK are rarely racist or homophobic. People who BELIEVE are often bigoted.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BOMA
      BOMA

      WHY ARE BLACK FOLKS TREATED WITH KITTY GLOVES AND NOT GAYS? HUH? YOU CANT DROP THE N WORD OR SAY EVEN SOMETHING SLIGHTLY RACIST WITHOUT THE WORLD STOPPING! BUT ANYTHING HOMOPHOBIC GOES. NOW PEREZ IS THE BAD GUY?. IF THIS GIRL SAID SOMETHING RACIST SHE COULD NOT BE ENJOYING THE MEDIA BLISS SHE IS ENJOYING…..GOING TO ALL TALK SHOWS TO DEFEND “WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN”. SHE COULD HAVE BEEN DUBBED THE DEVIL.WHY IS RACISM FROWNED UPON AND NOT HOMOPHOBIA? BLACK PEOPLE GET A FREE PASS IMO

      PS: IM NOT A RACIST AND IM NOT TRYING TO COMPARE HOMOSEXUALITY TO ETHNICITY

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • karen
      karen

      @jose:

      How do immigrants have more rights than u.s. citizens? explain that one to me

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ali
      Ali

      It’s been an empty celebrity fluff debate, but honestly? That’s the level of discourse that a lot of issues are discussed at. The debate is probably reaching people whose idea of incisive news commentary is People Magazine, and who really care about what Britney, Miley or Heidi Montag have to SAY. I know – eyeroll. But bear with me here.

      We don’t need everyone to be discussing constitutional law, reading state Supreme Court briefs, and delving into the thousands of years of marriage history and the evolution of civil rights. Frankly, a lot of people are never going to be that interested. Even some gay people aren’t that interested – or weren’t before Prop 8. We just need them to not be against our rights when they vote or get polled, so the political calculus changes for politicians – so that there is an electoral and donor cost to being against gay rights. Not being against us doesn’t require much effort. It’s as basic and fluffy as “bigotry is ugly, people should marry whoever they want”.

      What gets lost in the activism is that equal rights is a really, really easy to grasp concept, especially for straight people who know any gays. It’s why the % of people who support gay marriage and full civil rights increases drastically if they actually know a gay person, or a gay couple. A lightbulb goes off for those people and they think, “Well of course Nick and Jim should be able to get married, they’re so cute together.” And if someone opposes gay marriage, they think, “Why would you want to stop my friends getting married? What a bitch!” even if they aren’t activists, and even if it isn’t their first or even tenth political priority.

      The message going out as a result of this is, gay people and straight people are going to think you’re a bitch if you stop us from getting married! Even if your bigotry is because you’re a dumbass, and even if the gay people or straight allies in question are also dumbasses! And really, that’s an OK message to send out. Way too many straight people think we’re cool with them advocating second-class status for us – civil unions or no domestic partnerships at all – like we’ll get over it or something, will compartmentalize it, and will go back to being friends tomorrow. Please. We think they’re bitches. And we should say so more often.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Audrina
      Audrina

      @BOMA: If you are not a racist or you are not comparing sexual orientation to ethnicity then explain your whole rant? man, you may really not be a racist but your post sounds racist to me. It’s like saying: “why are you picking on me? why not pick on that other person who I believe is as defective as me”.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @BOMA:

      No, you are racist and probably a troll.

      Miss California, after all is not black, after all, so why would you say that black people get a free pass?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ali
      Ali

      Miss California is a person of colour, though she isn’t black. By her skin tone she appears to have some Oompa-Loompa ancestry, so we should be sensitive to her racial background. Although I am glad she didn’t deliver her little speech about opposite marriage (by the way… isn’t that divorce?) in rhyming song form.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @BOMA: Ha! Black people get a free pass, huh? Were you asleep during history class?

      Your point seems to be that open animus against gay men and lesbians is more acceptable than open animus against racial minorities. Fair enough; hardly surprising, is it? You remind me of the asinine NPR commentators who express shock and surprise at the passage of marriage amendments or the existence of the ex-gay movement. Only someone who is living in the functional equivalent of a cave would find that surprising.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlwaysGay
      AlwaysGay

      Miss California is a anti-gay bigot.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Alec:

      No, it was couched in that perfectly valid (and true point) but he said “Black people get a free pass.” No need to inject that into this discussion.

      Ignore the troll, let’s move on!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeC
      mikeC

      @jose: You may be right that gay men are often racist but illegal immigrants also think they are more morally correct than gay people. If sodomy is a sin then even crossing the border illegally is also a sin. You cant come to my country and look down upon me

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      This reeks of a return to the most dangerous of religions: Pansy Pollyanism. Is HER stupidity an excuse for OURS?

      Hypothetical situation:

      Prom er Beauty Queen has a gun and shoots & kills a gay couple because she believes that’s what the Bible tells her. [Think women's clinic bombings and shootings of "abortion doctors." And, no, one doesn't have to go to Iraq for people who still believe their "faith" okays murdering gays. The Chalcedon Foundation of California and other "Christian reconstructionists" believe that gays, adulterers, and other "Biblical lawbreakers" should be stoned to death. While having publically distanced themselves from stoning gays and allegedly no longer giving money to Chalcedon, Howard & Robert Ahmanson did give $995,000 to the YES on 8 campaign.]

      Where do you draw the line that must be drawn? Are rights legally denied because of stupidity any less rights than rights legally denied because of “bigotry”?

      Isn’t all bigotry based on stupidity? As someone once said, “Being gay isn’t a choice but being stupid is.”

      Perez was only wrong STRATEGICALLY in calling her a bitch. Would you be flaming him if he’d called her stupid?

      And, contrary to the idea that this particular person’s expression of support for deny gay equality is harmless—it is among the most dangerous because the demographic most attracted by such glorification of traditional gender roles are, I would bet, the most likely to also be homophobic themselves because homophobia [and transphobia] originates in gender role expectation. [Boobs on Parade: it’s ironic that she, and they, do not get that any woman who dressed and “painted” herself as she does in “Biblical times” would probably have been stoned to death for looking like a whore.]

      I think gays, e.g., Mel White, who try to convince religious homophobes that their interpretation of the Bible [or Koran] as being antigay is wrong because it is 1. a waste of time for most of his target audience, and, more importantly, 2. only reinforces the idea that any religious text SHOULD control changes to civil law.

      Instead, White, Perez, et al., should stay on the REAL message: you have a right to believe whatever you want; but that right stops at limiting my civil rights, or those of anyone else. WE WILL NOT DEBATE THAT WITH YOU.

      As a state legislator once said, “I put my hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. I don’t put my hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

      Once you insist upon that, you can waste the rest of your life trying to “nice” people like Ms. California [ah, again, the irony] into not trying to take away your rights anyway.

      More tea?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AmyA6778
      AmyA6778

      Miss CA is a bigot for not wanting people to have their rights simply because she disapproves.

      Perez Hilton is a sexist ass for calling her the b-word (which is a sexist slur). He had every right to get angry and to speak his mind and I would have totally agreed with him. But call her a sexist word and you’ve crossed a line.

      People of color get a free pass? Are you sure we’re from the same planet? We all get crapped on; instead of pitting minorities against each other like that maybe you should try to learn about what racism (and sexism) looks like. Because if you knew you wouldn’t be acting like P.O.C. have things great.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dancun
      dancun

      @BOMA: First of all:-My blackness is not treated with ‘kitty gloves’. It’s hard out there for a brother, name it stereotypes etc.Secondly :-The right wing is laughing at us minorities fighting about who is being treated better than who.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      PS: I forgot the specific American example of devout Catholic Eric Robert Rudolph, most famous for using dynamite and nails to bomb the Atlantic Olympics, but who also bombed two women’s clinics and a gay bar. In total, he killed two and wounded roughly 150.

      Is Ms. Teeth & Boobs going to do that? Unlikely. Is Rudolph a bigot or just stupid? Doesn’t matter. His victims are still dead.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dancun
      dancun

      Miss CA is entitled to her opinion but she is still a bigot IMO, but Perez is also seriously sexist. Those words he used after the fact are sexist slurs that are widely used. I think Perez’s response put him in the same category as bigots and for that reason He does not represent me.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin (not that one)
      kevin (not that one)

      @Ali: Thank you for making me laugh!!

      I think we should all sit back and just laugh a little over this whole episode. It’s such a diversion from the political work we should be concentrating on. The Miss America pageant is not the influential event it’s being made out to be by the media’s blowup of this spat. I mean, considering a gossip whore who crudely draws cum oozing from celebrities mouths was invited to participate in the first place, I think this show/contest and spat is way too overblown.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rogue dandelion
      rogue dandelion

      I believe perez called her a stupid bitch- which was more of calling her ignorant and uneducated than calling her a bigot.

      You cannot call her a bigot without calling obama, biden, and hillary bigots also. (which is fine, but be consistent) You can call her an idiot without referring to them as such, for the way she answered the question(clumsily referring to opposite marriage and a nonexistent choice).

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      No, it is Homosexual hate Mongerers Who are the Bigots

      Phobias are clinically defined mental illnesses on the American Psychiatric Associations DSM list.

      However, following the scripted psychological operations propaganda manifesto written by two mass public persuasion experts Kirk and Madsen in their landmark playbook called “After the Ball…” available from Amazon books.

      Kirk and Madsen strategized an aversion tactic to crush and silence all dissent. They called “Jamming”. This tactic is what bigoted homosexuals use by calling anyone who opposes them a “homophobe”. It would be like calling a liberal a conservative-phobe.

      Homophobe, bigot, mean spirited, wrong head, hate filled, narrow minded, intolerant, homophobic, discrimination, etc, these are all part of the scripted epithets part of the “jamming” tactic homosexuals use to “vilify” anyone who does not agree with the radical homosexual agenda. And “Vilify” is exactly the term Kirk and Madsen said homosexuals need to do to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda.

      Victimizing Prejean for her religious and moral beliefs, of which the overwhelming majority of people agree with, and the knee jerk scripted “jamming” response that includes Perez Hiltons threats of physical violence against Prejean for her religious views is a perfect example of how homosexuals terrorize and cow anyone who refuses to go along with the homosexual agenda.

      It is another example in a long list of those that scream the loudest for tolerance and open mindedness are the last to practice what they screech.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • audrina
      audrina

      Miss CA is homophobic and Miss Perez Hilton is a sexist. Same difference. As a woman if someone calls me a bitch, I consider it a sexist slur.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      And by the way, terrorizing, lying, stealing, extorting and threatening is exactly how homosexuals cowed the American Psychological Association into removing homosexual behavior from their DSM list, so that homosexual marketers could trumpet that public relations coup, which 3 decades later, they still do a as means of legitimizing their statistically aberrant chosen behavior.

      Now typically how homosexual agenda enforcers respond to that truth is to attack the messenger, but there problem is, it was a homosexual that blew the whistle and exposed how homosexuals terrorized the APA into submission, so “jam” away with your scripted epithets..

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @HeteroDefenseLeague: Oh boy.

      Victimizing Prejean for her religious and moral beliefs, of which the overwhelming majority of people agree with, and the knee jerk scripted “jamming” response that includes Perez Hiltons threats of physical violence against Prejean for her religious views is a perfect example of how homosexuals terrorize and cow anyone who refuses to go along with the homosexual agenda.

      1. There’s not an “overwhelming majority” of people who agree with her. If such an overwhelming majority did exist, there’d be no same-sex marriages at all in the states, and the votes would have been far more lopsided than they actually were.

      2. Please explain how “Perez Hiltons threats of physical violence” (first I’ve really heard of it) are “terrorizing” Prejean and silencing critics of the “homosexual agenda.”

      3. Prejean may or may not be classified as a bigot, but you certainly are one.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AZgaybe
      AZgaybe

      Oh, hells bells! Miss vagina of californication believes in santa claus and that Jesus came back from the dead and mary gave birth as a virgin. If mormon she believes the garden of eden was in missouri and joseph smith dug up golden tablets left by the lost tribe of israel(native americans)in new york! oh! and her shit smells like cherry blossoms and god is love. Whatever happened to i like children, ponies, and world peace? I guess it is more important to deny equal rights to a minority and be real pretty in a bikini. kisses from AZ

      Apr 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      St. Judy spare us the summa cum lout (sic) graduates of the Bumper Sticker School of Linguistics & Philosophy. ENOUGH with the automatic, illiterate, pseudo liberal characterizations of “bitch” as “sexist” or misogynist. Just because a word includes reference to a gender doesn’t ipso facto mean it is sexist. The speaker MIGHT also BE sexist, but use of a gender-related word alone doesn’t PROVE it any more than “Girl Scout cookies.”

      Most dictionaries, along with the basic meaning of “female dog,” define it with some variation of “a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman” (Webster). Are you saying that malicious, spiteful, or overbearing women don’t exist?

      If a woman calls a man a “prick” (“spiteful or contemptible man” – Webster) does that means she’s ipso facto misandrist?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Blow
      Joe Blow

      I miss Jossip we never heard about Perez Hilton who I absolutely cannot stand. He still looks like the fugly kid that no one picked for basketball in gym class.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bdyn
      bdyn

      Thursday Arts?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Diane
      Diane

      Yes, I think she’s probably homophobic but lord help us when some slime bucket like Perez Hilton gets trotted out as the representative for gay rights. No thanks.

      He’s a famewhore trying to claw his way into respectability but his true colors came out when his first reaction was to call her a bitch or the C word. I’m sure he would have drawn cum on her mouth if he could have.

      Gay slurs are unacceptable. So are slurs against women — gay or straight.

      Moreover, given that Donald Trump “owns’ the Miss USA pageant (which this was — not Miss America) and that he had Hilton on his stupid reality show a couple of weeks ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t come up with this idea for some free publicity.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James P
      James P

      i’m going to say “yes”… she is, almost. why? because if you read the transcript of her answer (and ignore the tone), you will read an answer that was barely coherent and a bit sloppy. she made statements that didn’t make sense.

      the fact that she was offensive is beside the point.

      however, thanks to Perez calling her a “bitch”, etc. the actual offense of the answer is now the center of attention. and frankly, Miss Cali is NOT backing down. she has her conviction, she has her belief, and she’s standing up loud and proud. THAT tells me that she has homophobic tendencies…

      to be be surrounded, supported, and aided by SO many homosexuals in her “career” and NOT REMOTELY think they are deserving as the same rights as she only proves that she is a bigot.

      but her “Anita Bryant” stance since the pageant says she leans in the “homophobe” direction…. although certainly not to the extent of Fred Phelps.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeandrewsdantescove
      mikeandrewsdantescove

      She deserved to lose. Miss America should be accepting of all people. Her answer immediately was hurt to the GLBTQ community.

      Mike
      http://cdbaby.com/cd/mikeandrews2
      Ft on Dante’s Cove

      Apr 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Doug
      Doug

      Small but important correction: Carrie Prejean was in the running for Miss USA, not Miss America. Two different pageants, two different crowns.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      @mikeC:

      you gays are too much.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @James P: Yup. Her answer was incoherent, but the actions taken after the fact do indicate that she plans on riding the intolerance wave as far as it will take her.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      No. She is not, and I wish all these irate gays would just leave her alone and focus on bigger problems like hate crimes and violence against gays.

      She was asked a question and answered it honestly. And the reaction (mostly from Perez) has been ugly and vile. That just fires up our real enemies.

      This woman has not embarked on a hate campaign against gays. If you can’t handle honesty, do not answer a question. There are billions of people on the planet against same sex marriage – as a result of being taught so for CENTURIES. We have only had gay rights for THIRTY YEARS OR SO. You do the math. It will take time to change minds.

      In the meantime, having some rabid, uncouth clow calling this girl the b-word and c-word DOES US NO FAVORS.

      SO PLEASE – DISAGREE WITH HER IN A WAY THAT IS NOT UGLY.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeWayne
      DeWayne

      But Andy SHE is Ugly! Seriously would you want to wake up next to that plastic,future Stepford wife? Rhetorical question since we are gay! ;)

      What is UGLY is the religious Taliban instruction she has been indoctrinated with. I know I went to the Christo-Fundy High School on the same campus as her College. Rev Tim LaHaye founder, the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement was CREATED right there on her Colleges campus.

      She grew up in the center of the California Chapter of the Moral Majority!

      She is getting exactly what she deserves!

      The same contempt she has for all of us!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Andy: Mostly your post is funny because you do not seem to link how cultural beliefs such as those she holds are the basis of why battles in the law are so hard to address. Do you think that the reason why these bills are hard to pass has nothing to do with the culture in which we live? Truly bizare. I suppose you will defend your stance somehow. But, it won’t be based on reality. Incidentally, one of the ways they finally overturned Jim Crow law was that they were able to demonstrate the cultural influence of racial discrimination on black people. In Brown v Board, they gave little black girls a choice of black or white dolls, and they girls almost always choose the white one as more desireable to being black. That mind set seems to be apparent amongst folks like you. Our position in the culture does not matter. But, of course, that has nothing to do with how that then affects our rights.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @DeWayne: Most people do not understand you can not begin to change homophobia until you start going after the softer versions of it. I am sure in her mind she does not think of herself as a bigot. Soft bigotry rarely realizes their is any bigotry involved. In soft bigotry , it’s never overt. No one is burning across or bashing anyone. It’s all about the ways in which they discriminate, but are diplomatic about it. I am not a bigot because I am not calling you “nigger.” That’s offensive, and those folks who say things like that are bigots. But I do not think blacks should marry. I think that’s morally wrong. I had a former friend say that to me in high school. Part of the problem here is that people have a cartoon version of bigotry in their heads that requires white sheets or men with baseball bats in back alleys. Bigotry- especially as rights progress- becomes far more complicated. It’s only now you will start seeing the deep levels to which its embedded into the fibers of our society. This soft bigotry of I don’t hate you, but I will discriminate against you is the more powerful kind. It very difficult to root out because of how it is presented.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @The Gay Numbers: Honestly – I just saw it as someone stating her opinion.

      If I had heard her say “I hate…” or “gays are bad because…” then believe me – I would have done a double-take and would be coming back at her.

      But I didn’t get that from her and I just feel people should be able to state an opinion without fear. I think liberals use the words “bigot” and “racist” too loosely to label everyone who does not think 100 % they way they do down to every single detail on every subject. And I think the left has become just as hostile as the right in some cases.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      I’m sorry but what if Rosa Parks kept that same policy of “tolerating” inequality??Where is our confidence that we ARE equal!!!???We cannot second guess that this comment is big,in that the world sees HATE on display,and “accepted”.a simple ride on a bus started a movement for my ancestors,let us not underestimate this “small” comment!!!!!!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      She is a homophobe, however, not one I would characterize as virulent (more as ignorant, or to be less kind, stupid). If she’s to believe so strongly in her right to speak out on the subject in a reasonable manner, she should certainly be engaged on the topic, as Geoff Kors seems to be trying to do.

      As far as how people on the left as well as the right are vilifying Perez, I have to say he deserves some of that. There was no call to use words like “bitch” or “cunt,” or respond stridently. It’s something extremists do, and it doesn’t help anyone in this situation. Let’s not forget how adept Perez is at heightening his own visibility through quasi-strident tactics.

      I don’t think in most cases from pro-gay people that accusing Perez means giving Miss California a free pass. Nor does she deserve one in any shape or form.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      …maybe its a generation thing…maybe a generation ahead of us will have the confidence and belief that they ARE equal.I can’t help but fell GLBT now dont have that REAL confidence..

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin (not that one)
      kevin (not that one)

      How does she feel about human beings and Oompa Loompas marrying?

      Seriously…because she is orange…like Anita Bryant’s OJ.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      feel*

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Andy: Her right to speak does not include the right to not be criticized. She spoke. That’s where her rights end. You also have a bizare definition of bigotry. By analogy, a KKK member has honestly felt feelings about race, and can plainly speak their minds too, but it does not render what they say any less bigotted. My former friend who said to me in the 1990s that he is okay with the races unless they marry was being earnest too, but he was still advocating bigotry. I will be blunt- part of the problem with debates in America is the dumbing down of the discourse. If you don’t understand what bigotry means, then you can’t really participate in this discussion on any real level with me. All you have said is that she should be able state an opinion without fear. That’s not free speech. That’s a license for authorian action. The founders intended for debates to be both voiceferous and virulent. The detail to which you are referring is a bigotted view because it discriminates against an entire class and causes that class actual rather than theorectical harm under the law. Neither she or you are harmed by marriage equality for gays. If you could prove it you would have done so by now. You can’t prove your postion without engaging in sophistry that turns language on its head such that it becomes virtually meaningless. The irony of our discussion here is that of the two of us, I am actually the truly conservative one because I am saying go with process and meaning. That we have a process for understanding discrimination and equality, and that this process should be used rather than emotional appeals to faith, which is not our tradition.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      I think it’s important to ask ourselves if there’s a distinction between having a personal conviction about a particular issue and whether you feel your personal conviction about the issue should be mandated by law.

      Her answer to the question was muddled enough to make one wonder if she fine with legalized same-sex marriage even though, in her personal belief, she may feel it’s wrong. Is that bigoted?

      A black woman, for example, may take personal issue with interracial marriage because she gets upset seeing strong, handsome, successful black men marry white women. She doesn’t necessarily advocate making interracial marriage illegal, but she still may harbor feelings against it. Is that bigoted?

      A religious man may feel it’s important to marry within his own faith. He may take issue with interfaith marriages because he feels it creates confusion when deciding what faith to raise children. He doesn’t necessarily advocate making interfaith relationships illegal, but he still may harbor feelings against it. Is that bigoted?

      Even if all of the above qualifies as bigotry (and I believe to some degree, it does) is there an acceptable level of peoples’ right to be wrong? Can we draw a line for “agreeing to disagree?”

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @Nickadoo: yeah BUT interracial marriage is NOT illegal,gay marriage is.so even if a black woman may feel uncomfortable an interracial couple doesn’t have to give squat about her opinion cause they CAN get married at the end of the day

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @Nickadoo: miss calif opinion is a public(very public) display of inequality and a country that is fine with it.THAT must not be tolerated!!!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @Nickadoo: when are we gonna stand up,you look at my black brothers and sisters they aint “tolerating” racism.call em the “n” word and watch the reaction,some may say it’s just a word /an opinion but they dont tolerate it yet we wont stand up forhuman basic right,as in REAL SHIT

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Nickadoo:
      Another example is a person who is personally not in favour of abortion, but who supports a woman’s right to choose.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Nickadoo: So you are saying their is no bigotry so long as its not codified? But that again divorces these discussions from reality. Since the whole point of racism and homophobia is that these things can and have been codified and the threat will always exist that the majority can act against the minority. The ultimate problem here is not that she has an opinion like someone saying they are afraid of Ginger people (a common joke when someone wants to deflect off of bigotry question), but that we already know these things have and are being acted upon every day. To accept that she’s not a bigot in context of our society is to ignore our society and her relationship to it. Her opinions are not borne whole from the head of Zeus with nothing that creates it.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      if we change it around she said something like “i dont believe blacks should have the right to marry” u will see hell on earth for her.cause African Americans aint “tolerating” that “free speech”!!!why are we tolerating it???!!!!!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: She did not make a distinction. You and others are adding that now to the conversation.

      I am really not interested in adding in words that were not stated by her to absolve her of her choices. In context, in California, she knows that this is a hot button issue that is currently undecided, and she was not referring to personal choices. You and others can pretend with what she did not say that she meant this, but it’s spin and b.s. that I might expect from a politician rather than a frank discussion.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @The Gay Numbers:

      love the reference, Gay Numbers.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Hold on. I’m just just commenting on Nickadoo’s post that a person can be personally opposed to an issue and yet still support something being made legal.

      Our former Prime Minister Paul Martin, a strong Roman Catholic, made a statement saying that very thing before his government introduced legislation recognizing Same Sex Marriage in Canada.

      I know whatshername didn’t say that and I’m not saying that she did. I am just saying that a person can hold one value for his or herself, yet believe something else is right for the public good, and it is not necessarily a conflict.

      Listen up. You’re not likely to get any marriage equality passed down there unless people start understanding that distinction.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lee
      Lee

      STOP THE MADNESS!

      11-yr. old little boys are KILLING THEMSELVES because the majority of the influences they have tell them that just being taunted for being gay makes life not worth living. They aren’t yet old enough to even know if they ARE gay, to be fired for being gay, to be denied the right to marry if gay, the right to serve their country if gay. EVEN THE MOST TALKED ABOUT, PRAISED MAN CURRENTLY ON THE PLANET HAS SAID WE’RE NOT QUITE GOOD ENOUGH.

      NO MORE MR. FUCKING NICE GAY!

      Everyone has a right to express any OPINION but we goddamn have the right to express OUR opinion that they are insensitive retards at best, insensitive bigots at worst.

      You can put as much lipstick on this Beauty Pig as you want—she is still one of the indirect contributors to the murder/suicides of presumed gays and trans and to our perpetuation as second class citizens in a Mary Crow America.

      Fuck her and fuck you…and NOT in the good way!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      I love how she soft-pedals her wrong-headed beliefs by following her statement with a “no offence to anyone” like that makes it all ok. It reminds me of people from where I live who can practically call someone a crack whore but it’s fine as long as they follow it up with a “God love ‘em” or “bless their heart”.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @The Gay Numbers: I’m not suggesting that we should back down from speaking out, and I never would. We have every right to be angry that people continue to feel this way, and we should be doing everything in our power to change people’s hearts and minds and accept our equality.

      You say, however, that she did not make that distinction. I believe that it could be argued she DID make that distinction. Her very first sentence was, “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.” This, of course, is FACTUALLY incorrect, I won’t argue that. But it does make the case that she may have POSSIBLY been suggesting that, while fine with legalized same-sex civil marriage, she has her own personal convictions against it.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      @Lee: I bet a lot of people haven’t thought about the point you make in the first part of your statement. Thank you for bringing it up. Bigotry even when served up in a soft serve pretty package is more destructive than most people realize.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: @<a There is no point in making stuff up that she did not say. Why you would run with this by adding additional layers if you do no agree with the made up statement is beyond me. It seems you have a real problem with basic relevancy. I am only interested in what she said, and whether that can be understood as bigoted. Not trying to change what she says. Not trying to figure out if in some other context someone may or may not have a problem with abortion. An example which is inapplicable mainly because of the harm issue.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @geoff: The soft peddling of bigotry works. Look at the number of people here who think just because she’s not slobbery at the mouth that means that her polite bigotry is acceptable. Well, she said it calmly so that means she’s not advocating discrimination.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Nickadoo: @<a She did not say what you are now projecting into the conversation. Your believes are irrelevant. The words are either there or not there.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      @The Gay Numbers: I know it. Which is why people like her are so much more effective than assbags like Fred Phelps. That’s why it’s even more important to call people like her out on their bullshit.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • macscruff
      macscruff

      @Lee: WELL SAID!!!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:

      In the first place you’re not the referee here.

      In the second place if you are so interested in and precise about what people say you should go back and read the numerous times I have had to repeat to you that I consider her comments homophobic and stupid. I made no statement here or anywhere else that she might have meant something else. No conditions, qualifications or excuses. End of story.

      Please don’t make this false accusation against me again.

      My point (and Nickadoo’s) is actually very relevant to this issue, because the only way you are going to make homophobes and people with religious convictions accept that what they are doing it wrong is to get them to understand that they are free to have their own views, but that recognizing our rights is the interest of the law and the public good.

      It’s certainly a more ealistic strategy than demonizing and refusing to have any dialogue at all with religious homophobes or the people who talk with them. I wonder how many votes you’ll swing that way.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DaveO
      DaveO

      Miss California’s statements were identical to those (“God’s in the mix”) made by our current president. If she is a bigoted homophobe, so is he.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @The Gay Numbers: I find it interesting that you’re suggesting that I’M putting words in HER mouth, while you’ve already suggested I said “there’s no bigotry,” after I’ve stated the opposite, and that I’d said we shouldn’t be angry, again after I’d stated the opposite.

      I’m mostly just fed up with the three-ring circus that’s been focused entirely around these two bubble headed attention whores.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @geoff: A lot of this relates to the immaturity of gays when it comes to the variants of bigotry. We are so used to the frothing at the mouth we do not yet understand how deadly and inplacable the soft bigotry can be.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Nickadoo: Then leave. I really could careless. You are making shit up. When called on it, you are defending the shit youare making up by spinning. I don’t feel the need to play this game with you. There was no reason to add what you added, and even now, you are addng yet more things that were never said. You and stump both seem to have a problem with just dealing with things as they are rather than adding to them.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @strumpetwindsock: You are offficially a nutjob. So, don’t worry about me saying anything else do you. We have been talking in circles with you increasingly becoming more irrational. So, I am going to leave you alone here on out.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • macscruff
      macscruff

      BTW – HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTICED THE TRAVELOCITY AD IN THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN? NEPTUNE ONLY SHOOTS FOR THE MEN, NOT FOR THE WOMEN. LOL.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      @The Gay Numbers: Wow! Put the pipe down, Mary.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Really? Well I’m sorry you misunderstand (I thought I was being pretty clear, actually). The notion of separating personal and public values was actually an important step for a lot of politicians here in Canada – not only in the same sex marriage issue, but also in the debates on decriminalizing sodomy (60s) and abortion (80s).

      And I’m sorry that you aren’t content to accept that we disagree on parts of this issue.

      But if you don’t want to talk, fine by me.
      Just please don’t make false accusations against me – I can’t imagine how you cooked that idea up because I said nothing of the sort.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile
      InExile

      @DaveO: Well, BO has been extremely silent with regard to our issues, so call him what you will! We are the forgotten once again!

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jjweho
      jjweho

      Miss USA

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Of course you can argue that her personal beliefs don’t match her public beliefs, but she publically expressed her personal beliefs, making them public. Perhaps she is find with legal same sex marriage, but why should we have to dig for an excuse? What has she done aside from voicing her opposition to same sex marriage as a part of her beliefs to merit such an out of the way, abstruse reading? I think that’s pathetic…I think people like strumpet who go out of their way to excuse bigotry and homophobes and those who actively associate with them because of ISSUES are pathetic. OF course, it’s their right to be self loathing, but there’s no defense for it.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And the subtler forms of bigotry are infinitely more powerful in keeping you people second class.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @TANK: I find the whole “let me make up an excuse for the bigot” to be pathological.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @The Gay Numbers:

      I doubt they really feel that way. They’ve just got some ego involved to attenuate (those who don’t recuse her of blame) the judgement. They appeal to nuance (e.g., complexity of human life) and smoke and mirrors to protect themselves from an introspective moment.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @The Gay Numbers: “I guess the answer to your question depends on whether a person who believes the races should not marry can be consider a racist?”

      I see the analogy you’re making, but there is one problem: it omits the element of time. The first state to repeal its anti-miscegenation laws was California in 1948; the practice became legal, nationwide, in 1967. So, a person sitting here in 2009, expressing the view that mixed-race marriages should not be permitted would indeed be expressing an opinion outside the boundaries of what our society has deemed acceptable — by several decades.

      The same thing isn’t true of same-sex marriage. Not in 2009, anyway. We are just now observing marriage equality gaining momentum as a social concept. A few states here and there are recognizing the right of same sex couples to marry. In miscegenation terms, we’re living in 1948. Going back to the 1940s, if a person had said interracial marriages should be illegal, that person would have been espousing a view that was not only socially permissible, but also mainstream. (By contrast, a person who advocated for race-neutral marriage rights would have been quite progressive!)

      Marriage equality is moving toward the mainstream at an astonishing clip. I think it will be a nearly ubiquitous feature of the developed world within our lifetimes. But we’re not there, yet.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sis
      sis

      answer me one question why is miss california uneducated just because of the fact she thinks a marriage should be between a man and a woman?
      as far as i hopefully understood you folks are able to have a “civil union” (in cali f.e.) which gives you (as far as i know) the same rights married couples have. so why are you mad that you aren’t allowed to marry traditionally? i thought it was all about the rights. marriage (in my country) wouldn’t work without a civil marriage which is the same as a civil union.
      SO – i think basically it’s a misusage of terms (but I’m not sure about that). thought perez uses it the right way, he wants to marry in a church.
      I’m a logtime reader of perez and since prop 8 i’m really really disapointed cause he treats humans and their rights like shit. and everybody has to bow down, cause criticizing gays means to be called a “nazi” “nitch” “cunt”.
      perez is a sexists, he’s heterophob.. and still he seems to be the “voice” (as he calls himself) of all gays. and as far as i have read here (i wanted to know what you gays think about him and his antics) you are all the same, hatefilled, whining, heterophobe people. thats truly sad.
      i can understand that life as a gay is sometimes hard (*gigglegiggle*) but guess what, life’s hard for everyone.
      go for a civil union, go get all the rights you need, but do it with dignity, a minimum of respect and understanding.
      (yes perez destroyed a much of my “gaylove” and i really feel bad because of that, but i’d love to have just ONE gay stand up and clearly and intelligent say WHY it’s important to be legally “married” and that perez isn’t representing the gays – maybe i would regain some respect – and yes, i’m educated. and oh yes, i know a lot of gays, and i used to like (most of) them, but don’t ask me anytime soon about it.)

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      Pragmatist:

      I see.

      So an opinion is more or less bigotted based on time? It’s not that it was just as bigotted in 1947 as it was in 1948 or 1960 or 1990 with my friend? It’s that time determines bigotry? In 1947 it was “less bigotted” than 1960. In fact, slavery was not wrong in the 1860s, but is wrong now because of time. There was nothing morally reprehensible about it because the majority supported it.

      Afterall, you use time, but the implicit assumption is how many people support it at any given time. I suppose going forward into the future if whites decide that marriage between the races is wrong again- then that’s not bigotry? Your argument produces aburdities when applied.

      Let me clear something up for you. A person sitting in 2009 saying that slavery was an evil is not wrong or simply looking at it through the times.They are looking at it for what it was. Whether or not majorities were willing to admit to their evil in the past does not change the nature of what they were doing. Recognition of evil does not change the fact of whether it was evil or not to own humans as chattel. Your argument fails because it requires recognition.

      Let me suggest a less problematic view: perhaps the issue is that people could not admit to harming others. That the standard throughout should be this requirement that we can show individual or systemic harm. Real harm. Not theorectical as in six degrees of separation harm. But harm in which someone is denied their right to believe or denied their right to marry. Whether now or then, that’s something that was understood. The problem with not that they did not understand the concepts I am applying. It’s that they refused to apply them to the group in question.

      My law professor used to say that America does not do special rights. It just includes new groups in rights that everyone else has enjoyed all along. So, yes, in 1947 they were all bigots, and in 1968, etc. The times do not change the existence of the discrimination against the group.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      SIS is funny. The bigot wants me to explain to him or her why she’s being a bigot. No thanks. If you were able to troll your way over to this site, that means you can figure out on your own.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And we all of us know that good and bad wax and wane with whatever the majority considers it to be (acceptable, too)… And that can serve an excuse to mitigate the ethical culpability of slave owner to gay basher. Now how many counterexamples can be made available to that assertion?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      See how common it is? People make the invalid inference that because one or a majority of people consider something to be acceptable that makes it acceptable. It’s all about the meaning of “for”…for of according and for of applies to…

      Anyway, it can’t be used as an excuse to get people off the hook…just because they have a belief that’s common says nothing about whether or not that belief’s good.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @sis:

      perez as the voice of all gays? I don’t know what you are smoking but I don’t want any of it.

      Noone on this site would disown perez for his comments, but maybe you want to find just a few more samples and examples of the gays than perez hilton or “the gays” that you know.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      Homosexuals like Perez and here are truly homosexist, heterophobic Christian bashing fascist hate mongerers.

      You fascist venomous hate mongerers ought to try a little tolerance and open mindedness as your hate filled homosexual bigotry is once again rearing its ugly head.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @HeteroDefenseLeague:

      Like you do? You practice tolerance and open mindedness by being intolerant of homosexuality? Is it your reliance on homophobic hate speech that positions you in this rarefied perspective to be dispensing wisdom about open mindedness and tolerance of other’s views? You surely have demonstrated your tolerance and open mindedness by bashing gay people with every single comment you issue… I don’t think you’ll comprehend the blatent hypocrisy…and…irony of your comments.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @The Gay Numbers: It looks like there are two issues here, so let me discuss them separately.

      1. You asked if I think time determines whether an opinion is bigoted. Yes, I do. But I need to clear something up, first.

      When most of us say “bigot,” we (I’m including myself here) don’t use that term with its precise meaning. To be precise, a bigot is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.” (Merriam-Webster.) By that standard, many vegans are bigots; almost nobody intends to use the term that way.

      When we say that someone is a bigot, what we’re really trying to convey is that someone is regressive, or out of touch, or discriminatory in a way that is bad and socially unacceptable.

      To me, that kind of concept is heavily dependent on its social context. And social contexts are inherently relative. You could say that the entire society in 1948 was bigoted (although some pure relativists might take issue with it); but it’d be unfair to single out an individual as some sort of deviant opinion-holder if he or she passively held an opinion that the rest of society held, too.

      I tend to think that the more you learn about different cultures and time periods, the harder it is to believe in objective morality anyway. If it were discovered that some cult compound in Texas had 12 year-old boys sucking off their elders, we’d all be outraged, and the event would be swiftly prosecuted. But there have been (and still are, I think) tribal cultures where rituals exactly like that exist and are viewed as desirable and good. I flinch at the thought, but only because I’m steeped in the predominant mores of my own society.

      2. I don’t want it to be implied that this is a distinctly American thing. Right now, in 2009, same-sex marriage is unavailable almost everywhere. In Europe, where most specific items of social progress have arrived earlier than in the U.S., only four countries have marriage equality. In that context, I do think it’s a bit unfair to label someone as a horrible outcast if he or she doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage — unfortunately, at present, most people don’t.

      (Luckily, soon, I think this situation is going to experience a dramatic reversal, at least in the U.S.)

      3. Oops, I said there were two issues but I have a third one I want to raise: there are other forms of discrimination or “bigotry” that are almost universally acceptable, and yet I *personally* think they’re reprehensible. For example, I think it’s barbaric that people can be fired for their personal appearance. I believe — with nearly the same force that you believe in marriage equality — that people should have a basic civil right of autonomy over their clothing, hairstyle, piercings, tattoos, etc. In my dream-world, a company that fired an employee for dying his hair green would have a million-dollar lawsuit on its hands.

      Obviously, society doesn’t value equality, nondiscrimination and self-determination to that extent. And it is unlikely I will see society get there before I’m dead. But one day, perhaps, it might. And then, would future-people look back on us and say that your boss was an evil bigot because he implemented a dress code policy? And would that be fair, if they did?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      You forget, gay numbers, this person above me believes that the world is but a social construct.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      There’s no need..though it can be amusing I must admit…to heed someone whose head so intractably lodged in their…posterior.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Pragmatist:

      When we say that someone is a bigot, what we’re really trying to convey is that someone is regressive, or out of touch, or discriminatory in a way that is bad and socially unacceptable.

      Or perhaps, “band and should</i be socially unacceptable” is a better formulation?

      You could say that the entire society in 1948 was bigoted (although some pure relativists might take issue with it); but it’d be unfair to single out an individual as some sort of deviant opinion-holder if he or she passively held an opinion that the rest of society held, too.

      In matters of race and gender and religion, they almost certainly were, by modern standards.

      This form of relativism is terrifying, in my opinion. Supporters of ethnic cleansing, genocide and other historical monstrosities are given a free pass….we can’t judge them, we’re not situated as they are. But, even worse, it legitimizes the bias of the period. It becomes “wrong” to single out individuals who hold popular but currently unacceptable views because, well, they were prevalent. But why should I care about prevalence?

      Also, to be fair, using your definition, only those who oppose same-sex marriage but support equitable legal rights for same-sex couples can be insulated from the bigot charge; we have ample polling on that.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @TANK: That’s inaccurate. I don’t think the world is a social construct. There is plenty of non-social evidence that the world exists, though we’ll never be able to comprehend it except in terms of our own ability to abstract and classify its constituent parts.

      But I digress.

      Obviously social institutions and social concepts (such as bigotry) are social constructs. Duh. Did you think they were boolean algebra?

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      Alec:

      Thanks for responding. I thought my point about slavery made the point, but Prag appears too busy spouting off pop relativism to realize what he is condoning.

      Prag:

      I am not the person for your arguments. Essentially, they are a license for attrocity. Real world harm is ignored in favor of sophistry.

      Not my thing. I had a friend in college who used to play this game with me.

      I would kick him. He would continue to talk. I would kick him again. He would say stop. I would say why should I stop? He would say you “should” stop. I would say precisely- I “should” stop. That in a nutshell is why your argument fails.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      I said her comments were homophobic and stupid. Plan and simple.
      Nothing about her public and private beliefs at all.

      Do I need to repeat this statement in every post so the two of you will get it through your skulls (or at the very least others reading this will know you are lying)?

      Next thing I know TANK, you’re going to use that all-caps version of my name you registered and pretend to post as me again so people will think I am saying the things you want me to.

      I’d like to see you square that dirty, deceitful act with your high morals.

      @The Gay Numbers:

      And didn’t you just say you were done with me and going to leave me alone? Very next post you’re back at it again.

      I never once said anything excusing her words or behaviour. GN, You say you pay close attention to people’s words and what they say, yet you haven’t read one thing I have said. Why let the truth get in the way of your dogma?

      You’re just pissed because I don’t agree with the treatment Michael Phelps is getting in that story, and because I don’t see any evidence that he’s done or said anything homophobic.

      You guys are at the front line fighting the forces of discrimination? Bullshit. You’re a couple of lying snakes who would stab anyone in the back if they say so much as a word different than your party line.

      I know people who, though I may disagree with them on issues of gay rights, are ten times as honourable and trustworthy as you two. For all your politically correct talk you do not stand for anyone except for yourselves and your inflated egos.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Pragmatist:

      Well than that’s just being inconsistent, in my opinion. There’s no difference between the inverse square law and an ethical truth, I’d argue. Some people get awfully confused when they start talking about ethics…for some odd reason. I don’t know… You, however, preference certain facts above others, and say that they’re mind dependent, i.e., that our attitudes and beliefs determine ethical reality. Why not extend that to encompass all of reality? There’s no principled non ad hoc reason why you don’t. Just saying that bigotry requires a person or group of people to sustain it doesn’t say anything about its ethical status which you haven’t made an argument for ITS own mind dependence–determining the truth value of ethical assertions based upon the beliefs and attitudes toward it people hold. This isn’t relativism, btw.

      This is extremely sloppy reasoning…you can’t infer that x is right just because someone believes that x is right or according to them x is right…no more than you can infer that the earth revolves around the sun merely because someone believes it; or that it doesn’t merely because someone (or the majority of people) doesn’t.

      We don’t create bigotry, though. We creat our attitudes? Our attitudes depend upon us (beliefs, too)…but not their truth value.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @Alec: Those are excellent points, and I can’t really offer a suitable counter to them. Relativism is difficult to avoid, and yet if it’s applied consistently, it yields nihilism.

      In my personal life, I don’t take like to view the world in such extremely relative terms. It’s unsatisfying. So, I arbitrarily draw certain boundaries, and (for my own purposes) declare them absolute. But I know, ultimately, that I chose them arbitrarily and that similar boundaries just a few degrees off would probably work just as well.

      I don’t know how to judge past societies. I think it’s most useful to view them analytically — what did their features result in? Are those results something we want, or something we want to avoid?

      As for individuals, though, I think they must be judged according to their time and their society, since those things set the structure of “rules” that apply to the person. Most legal systems operate this way, which is why retroactive penalties are unconstitutional in most developed countries.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      It is scary, but it’s a common view. IT’s an extremely common view…and the argument is something like this…

      according to B, x is good; so for B, x is good; therefore, x is good. It equivocates between the for of according to (e.g.,I believe that bourbon proves that god exists, and that he hates us) and the for of applies to (I don’t merely believe that one is required by law to stop at red lights, and that cops in pursuit of criminals in high speed chases believe otherwise)….

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @The Gay Numbers: I don’t need you to continue engaging on this point, but I do want to clarify that I wasn’t playing some kind of logic game. I know the kind of discussion you’re talking about, and while I don’t usually have the impulse to kick someone, I do get bored.

      I was actually hoping to hear some thoughts on those points, especially my third point, because I think they’re interesting and difficult to grapple with at times. But, it seems they were brushed aside as “sophistry.” That’s too bad. :-(

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, that’s simply false. Relativism never yeilds nihilism, applied correctly. Ethical relativism is not ethical nihilism. The way you’re envisioning it to yeild nihilism is the self refuting truth “there are no ethical absolutes”…except that one…

      Apr 23, 2009 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And to back that up…nihilism (a metaethical view) denies the existence of moral properties (properties are things like blueness and redness)…like goodness and badness. Relativism affirms the existence of moral properties, they’re just relative properties or relational…like gravity. Relativists are ethical realists; nihilists antirealists.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @TANK: I don’t really understand the point you’re making. My way of interpreting the world is not perfectly consistent, and I never represented it to be as such. As I said a moment ago, I find some of these issues very difficult because I don’t see any non-arbitrary place to put the guard rail on the slippery slope.

      At the same time, I have tried to give objectivists and such a fair and open-minded reading, and I have found that branch of thought completely circular and unpersuasive.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Pragmatist:

      I don’t think you’re very well informed of the issues here, nor the arguments. If you don’t have a consistent view of things…how can you have a view of things at all? Seems incoherent (round square territory). Anyway, I think I’m going to cease and desist here.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Pragmatist: I think it is close to unavoidable, but I think cultural relativism is more dangerous than individual moral relativism. It has the added toxic effect of legitimizing the views of a cultural group, and there’s no real reason to favor that over individuals, so….

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @TANK: I don’t think anyone has a consistent view of things, and I think anyone who claims to have such a view is probably mistaken.

      I am absolutely NOT interested in one of those philo major “my dick is bigger than yours” contests. So please do cease and desist.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Pragmatist:

      LOL! I lied. This isn’t a contest. What you believe and what is the case are distinct, mercifully. So you can assert that people don’t have consistent views of anything, but in the absence of any argument provided…there’s no reason to believe it…you haven’t established it.

      I think relativism is highly avoidable. It isn’t relative that unnnecessary suffering is bad, and that happiness is good. Anyone who suggests a different understanding of these terms simply fails to comprehend empirical facts about human beings…that we have preferences and avoid suffering.

      Relativism, if consistently held, denies the existence of moral disagreements by stating people are talking past one another because whenever people disagree about the meaning of good or bad, they’re relying on their own standard, and not addressing the other’s. I disagree because it offers nothing on how to resolve moral problems…it brings nothing to the debate, really (it describes how one person interprets the meaning of good differently than another person…well, duh). I think we can make ethical arguments (like that homophobia is wrong) through practical reasoning based upon an understanding of what right and wrong mean. Further, I also think that there are ethical truths that arise because of the fact that we have nerve endings…and are capable of suffering and being happy. These are objective facts about our species, and not arbitrary at all.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Still, you must admit that the utilitarian calculus you revere has no special standing. There is no law of nature that dictates we must choose pleasure over pain, happiness over despair.

      Of course one can point to the empirical realities….to the existence of pain and suffering and pleasure and happiness. To which the relativist (and nihilist, I suppose) asks, “Of what consequence?”

      You disagree by stating that it brings nothing to the debate. But it does bring something to the debate, doesn’t it? Even if that something is a denial of the relevance of the debate. As gods are irrelevant to the atheist, so too are “standards” and “values” immaterial to the subjectivist.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Alec:

      First, you’re confusing ethics with metaethics. From an ethical perspective, I think it’s pretty objective (and by that obscurantist word, I mean mind independent) that human beings have preferences, and seek their fulfillment. We do (that is the case that we seek pleasure over suffering). In that regard, I don’t require a natural law to recommend it. But nonetheless, relativism conflates the for of applies to with the for of according to, and is invalid.

      But is there an objective fact in the world (what is) that demands that we ought be utlitarians? No, but who cares…ethics concerns what ought be, not what is. So simply bringing up the is ought distinction fails to say anything relevant about ethical theories (and objectively, some ethical theories, if acted upon, increase realize collective happiness better than others–an objective feature of ethical theories). Perhaps that we’re inherently normative creatures (constantly thinking about what we ought do) implies that we’re inherently ethical creatures (whatever that ethic is we act upon).

      In that regard, utilitarianism does have a special standing, and that standing is that it maximizes our preferences. Ethical standards are measured against each other (like all theories). Consequentilism seems to be a survivor when mathced against its rivals.

      And yes, there are ethical truths…one is that one ethical theory maximizes happiness better than its rivals. Or that something is wrong because it increases unnecessary suffering…pretty objective.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      No, standards and values are very relevant to subjectivists. Nihilists are pretty hard targets in metaethics…they’ve got some pretty heavy hitters for it. Nihilists aren’t relativists, though…one can grant the existence of universal ethical truths (whatever that means)…only according to a certain standard…x is always wrong according to standard y, for example…and be a relativist. Nihilists deny the existence of ethical truths altogether.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @TANK: Yes, humans have preferences…and? I guess I am missing the next step in the sequence; humans have preferences. So what? There’s no rule which dictates some command to follow those preferences. The is ought gap remains.

      I’m very skeptical of your ability (or anyone’s) to bridge the is-ought distinction. Nothing you’ve written suggests there’s any command to obey the “rules” (arbitrary rules) that utilitarians establish. Just a wish that we do so. Ah, if wishes were horses…

      Anyway, perhaps I’m missing something and you will enlighten me.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I’m not trying to bridge the is ought distinction. People have preferences and act to satisfy them. They don’t require something extra that is the case to follow because that IS the case (descriptive not prescriptive). I think it has nothing to do with whether or not moral truths exist, to be honest (for moral truths are prescriptive, not descriptive). The moral truth, for example, that unnecessary suffering is bad is entailed by what is meant by bad (which is that…). Anyone who thinks unnecessary suffering’s good is confused about the term’s meaning, or has a few screws loose or both. What makes it true is the kind of things humans (and other beings capable of suffering) are. This does not eliminate the is/ought distinction, but the is ought distinction has nothing to do with ethics…just because the way something IS cannot entail the way something ought be has nothing to do with what OUGHT be. There’s nothing more to be made of it.

      An argument for consequentialism would be that every moral theory ever proposed has been justified on consequentilist terms…that it will promote overall good. From muslim to christian, to virtue ethicist (which is not at all the same as the former two), etc. All of them attempt to derive its authority from consequentialism (the end result being the best for the most).

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Even ethical egoism ultimately attempts to dervie its ethical authority from consequentialism.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      Prag:

      Yes, they are sophistry in the real world. The reason I hate philosophy as a general is that it like logic is limited until you apply some sort of understanding of the real world to understand what is ethically true. As I said before, it is absurd to claim that the opressor (those attacking gays) are in the same position as the oppressed (gays). The same is true regardless of who is the oppressor and the oppressed. By doing what you are doing, you ignore power, harm and all sorts of other things that matter to us real humans.

      We are left with absurdities in which I am “harming” the oppressor by pointing out that the oppressor is, in fact, oppressing. This is not a serious discussion not matter how much you want it to be. It’s not your fault or mine. It’s the nature of the tools being used. It’s expecting an ax to do the job of a screwdriver. Philisophical ethics can not by itself provide any understanding. This is why it’s sophistry.

      We need facts, rules, etc to begin to understand how to navigate the world. Without them, we are not able to do much of anything other than theorize that oppressors are the same as the oppressed and other retarded ramblings we hear from people who don’ want to think to hard. It’s the kind of thing that a conservative would love. They press their own variant of pop reativism by equating themselves as the victims because they can not harm others. It’s like the serial killer complaining because he is arrested before he murders his next victim. I suppose in some warped ethical way this can be validated. But it’s not real.

      Don’t feel bad- I don’t believe any any scheme that requires me to believe only in one thing- whether relativism or something say along the lines of Michel Focault. I doubt you believe in only one thing either. Because of that, this is kind of a pointless conversation. In the real world, I am sure you agree that those bashing gays are not the same as the gays being bashed. We should protect one, but not the other. If you agree with this, that’s why I look at the Beauty queen as a bigot.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nomad
      Nomad

      I suspect that no one ever told Perez Hilton that “beauty comes from the inside”

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • asma
      asma

      I like who really cares!

      http://www.IGotConverse.com

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • michael
      michael

      We cannot make people love us. We cannot make people even accept us. Just ask any black person that interacts with a lot of non blacks and they will tell you. I am originally from Tennessee and let me tell you, they are still fighting the civil war there. The other day a friend told me she was going to the “Red Neck Yacht Club”. I said your joking, there is not a yacht club named that. Well I was wrong. It is also a place where the whole song writing, music crowd, which in Nashville are your beautiful people, hang out. Who would be proud of being termed a “redneck”, which basically infers ignorance, lack of education, bad manners, bigotry. Ignorance. Lack of education may be an issue, but its no excuse. And let me tell you, there will be those who are not going to change, loads of them. They are to stupid, to backward, just not the class of people who are capable of it. Yeah, there is the occasional one that breaks the mold but they are rare.

      My only problem with the Miss California issue is when I heard Perez say in an interview that he said the “b” word but was thinking the “C” word. I was embarrassed and appalled. The folks we have a chance with are folks who are intelligent, open minded and have a level of worldliness and sophistication. The kind of people that if they are religious are able to take the higher plane of religion. People who are socially conscious, and just have class a decorum. We don’t need to swim with the bottom feeders and we don’t need to look like and act like one as well. Trashy crudeness will not gain us the respect of those who can help us.

      I have no problem with the criticism of Miss California, I just wish we could keep it at level of dignity and respect. You can tell someone that their views are bigoted without calling them the C word. Perez is not a class act to begin with and it sickens me that there are people who see him as a representative of our Gay Rights Movement.

      “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important” Dr. M. L. King Jr.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pragmatist
      Pragmatist

      @The Gay Numbers: Thanks for your comments. They were reasonable and nicely put. I think we’re in significantly greater agreement than I previously thought.

      I still stand by my original point, though, that the overall social context is important in judging a person. And I don’t think that’s rooted in empty abstracts, either — I think it’s just a simple observation of how our standard is always moving.

      The beauty queen may or may not be a bigot, as far as I’m concerned; I haven’t bothered to read anything else she said besides the initial response that sparked all of this. I just wouldn’t feel comfortable applying such a powerful label to her when all I know is that she expressed a currently mainstream view, without any overt hostility.

      One of the reasons I think widespread marriage equality will arrive quickly is that there aren’t really any good public policy reasons not to have it. It’s actually just like miscegenation in that regard. Almost everyone now understands that there’s no reason to oppose mixed-race marriages, so anyone who does oppose them is bucking the grain to take a stand that has few possible bases other than racism.

      The same thing is true for same-sex marriage. At the very core of it, there’s no real reason to oppose it (from a public policy perspective) except for one’s private disapproval of homosexual relationships. However, there’s a difference: I don’t think the logic behind that fact has resonated throughout society yet. That is, I don’t think most people really know there’s no reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

      I’ve seen people who are overtly very supportive of GLBT people, but who have qualms about legalizing same-sex marriage. For those people, the qualms don’t seem to be based on hatred. They seem to be based on an inchoate fear of the unknown — a sense that same-sex marriage is a big shift for society (which it kind of is), and a gut feeling that big social shifts are risky and scary. Over time, as more places offer same-sex marriage, and as it becomes clear that the sky didn’t fall down, I think the mainstream understanding of marriage equality will change, too. I think most people will then understand that there’s no reason to oppose it.

      At that point, I’d be comfortable labeling anyone who opposes it a bigot.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @michael:

      “We cannot make people love us. We cannot make people even accept us.”

      We also cannot be made to stand by idly while these people disrepect us and our families. We can also say that while Perez Hilton uses poor argumentative methodology, he has every right to feel the way he does, without that being ascribed to every other LGBT person.

      Apr 23, 2009 at 11:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • geoff
      geoff

      @sis: Let’s see, you came on a gay website, went on a thread about someone saying she wasn’t for gay marriage,and you’re surprised and appalled that people on said thread don’t like her and are saying mean things about her? Are you f@#king kidding me? First off, I don’t think anyone(and I may be wrong here)said she was uneducated because of what she said, it was how she said it. “We have a choice between same sex marriage and opposite marriage” WRONG! Only 4 states have same sex marriage and the federal government doesn’t recognize it anyway. “I think I believe…” Who the hell says that? Either you believe something or you don’t. Next point: who the hell said Perez Hilton is the voice of gays? Trust me, the very thought of him speaking for me makes me (and I might add, many others) want to vomit. Third point, you say you used to like the gay people you know unil all this nonsense started. The fact that you no longer like an entire group of people based on what some idiot attention whore said on his blog, and from what a few people you don’t even know said on a thread of a website made for gay people (I’m assuming you are a straight female,not that there’s anything wrong with straight females going on gay websites) says a lot about your character, and none of it good.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 1:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      I have a solution that will solve all the GLBT community’s problems quickly and easily. Anyone who dislikes us or thinks we don’t deserve equal rights should just give up and die. I rather like that idea, myself.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 2:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @The Gay Numbers:

      In the real world, I am sure you agree that those bashing gays are not the same as the gays being bashed. We should protect one, but not the other.

      That’s where your reasoning falls apart.

      If we are not fighting for equal protection for everyone, then we’re fighting for nothing at all.

      Until enough people on both sides of a divide realize that we ARE all the same (read: human beings) nothing changes.

      I have no interest in becoming an advocate for the religious right; my main concern is with our community and our rights. But we should fight injustice no matter who is hurt by it – even our worst enemy.

      If we’re down on relativism, well then we should agree that wrong is wrong, and illegal is illegal.

      I’m not interested in supporting some queer version of the Scientologists’ Fair Game Law. I’ve seen often enough that any one of us can get turned on and branded an enemy if we’re seen as stepping out of line.

      That’s not what I’m fighting for.

      But then again, we’re not fighting for marriage equality up here any more; we have it already. Guess what? A lot of the work to make it happen was done by straight people many of whom were personally opposed to gay marriage, but who supported it because it was the legal and ethical thing to do.

      I’m sure some of the politicians and justices who have gotten marriage equality as far as it is in the U.S. feel exactly the same.

      So are those homophobes your enemies or your friends?

      Apr 24, 2009 at 2:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • boytroy
      boytroy

      Miss California is just another example of what lies under California’s mask of progressiveness and liberalism. Like proposition 8 she is an embarrassment to the state. I liked that Perez asked the question. I stand behind him on his view of her. But to saw the TV interview where he referred to her using the “C” word and was godsmacked and embarrassed. As gays we are a minority and we have very few voices to dilute the ones that are inappropriate and stupid. He could have stated his disdain for her without using that language. There is a time and place for everything. I don’t even understand why he was selected to be a judge anyway. He’s basically immature and freak. No wonder more people in the entertainment industry don’t come out of the closet. It would be like joining a freak show or a bunch of clowns hunting a circus.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 4:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      Perez Hilton is a typical example of homosexual bigotry and narrow minded intolerant, Christian bashing and terroristic threatening homosexual fascist drooling bigots.

      it is time minorities like Christians stop being victimized by The Homosexual Hate Mongering Menace

      Apr 24, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sal Manilla
      Sal Manilla

      @HeteroDefenseLeague: LOL, Minorities like Christians! Youre a joke man.
      Go cry at your church and get off the discussion boards.

      Apr 24, 2009 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @HeteroDefenseLeague: Hetero Defense League?

      Considering the fact that heterosexuality is indefensible and the first step to its obsolescence was with test-tube babies?

      KKKristians are minorities? Bullshit. It’s hilarious when oppressors act like the oppressed.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      Oppressors like homosexual bigots always cloak themselves in the sheeps clothes, just like Hitlers deputies claimed they were being victimize by Jews.

      Homosexual hate mongerers are the new Nazi’s and to homosexual bigots, minorities like Christians are the new Jews and homosexual bigoted terrorists will stop at nothing until all Christians are either in gulags, railway cars with gas piped in or in ovens.

      Apr 25, 2009 at 7:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Destroy Christians
      Destroy Christians

      Its either YOU or US homos “in gulags, railway cars with gas piped in or in ovens.”

      I vote for you Christians

      The World will be so much the Better!

      When all you Hateful Bigots are GONE!

      Apr 25, 2009 at 10:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      As you can see from the venomous hatred and intolerance by the bigoted, ignorant homosexual in post #146, once again homosexual bigotry rears its Christian bashing, narrow minded, intolerant, homosexist, heterophobic, anti-Christian hatred and bigotry.

      Your hate will consume you to the point where like many other homosexuals, you go off the deep end and attend bug chasing and gifting parties.

      Apr 26, 2009 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      There is no evidence that the original thirteen states defined marriage as between a man and a woman because of social animosity towards homosexuals.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 12:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sal Manilla
      Sal Manilla

      Its great to see so many intelligent people responding to this sad little man claiming to be a “Hetero-Defense League”.

      @HeteroDefenseLeague – your words are not Christ – like at all.

      You are evil and hateful. Why cant you see that.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      If this bible-punching airhead really believes in that book of fairy tales, then what on earth is she doing entering a beauty pageant, an act of vanity according to her book of contradictions to say nothing of her appearance in a revealing swimsuit, parading her naked flesh in front of single and married men, another no-no in her book of hypocrisy and bigotry. The problem with these religious bigots is they want it both ways, their way or the highway. Lets go after their tax-exempt status once and for all. Why should these cults be above the law anyway while the rest of us have to foot the bill to pay their share of taxes? It was once thought that the reason why they are exempt was to prevent politicians from buying their votes. Now the situation is reversed, they’re buying politicians to influence the outcome of legislation. Tax them with impunity I say, force them to open their books for the IRS to see. Since they pay no taxes, they have no right to denigrate or discriminate against us, they need to shut the fuck up, or pay up.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Sal Manilla:

      Sal, Heterodefenseleague is a closet case. He’s posting all over the blogsite. It tells me he’s protesting too much and you know what that implies. He just can’t resist men, its all the guilt he’s feeling.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 12:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • macscruff
      macscruff

      @Robert, NYC: I agree Robert.

      Somehow this person (HDL) chooses to believe certain opinions from others as fact.

      The proof that he/she has deep emotional issues is very clear and posted on several different posts.

      I once knew a poor boy who thought Charles Manson was his father. He had numerous quotes and references to prove this was true and he had some very valid points. He was almost convincing but it just was not true.

      I’m not sure what kind of mental or emotional disturbance this is called, but it sounds very much like the constant rantings from HDL.

      Just because you read or hear something doesn’t make it fact. When your disillusions start to hurt others, it’s time to step back and really consider at what extreme you have gone to.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HeteroDefenseLeague
      HeteroDefenseLeague

      Leave it to homosexual hate mongering bigots to accuse your political opposition of being homosexual, thus admitting the negativity of your chosen sexual behavior, otherwise why accuse your political enemies of engaging in it?!

      Freud would have a field day with your admissions, and you all would flunk debate class in at the grade school level.

      Bigoted heterophobes……

      Apr 27, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Straight-n-narrow babe
      Straight-n-narrow babe

      @DaveO:
      Amen. And remember it was none other than William Jefferson Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

      Apr 27, 2009 at 8:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      This is an interesting, and odd debate. No one here seems to speak coherently about the whole thing, at least as far as I’m concerned, and frankly it’s rather depressing.

      First, let me say this: no one, hetero or homo or anyone else, has a *right* to get married. It’s simply not the case. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. You have the right to speak frankly to your sister, but you don’t have the right to marry her. Marriages have to be approved by the state (with licenses and so forth) in ways that most other rights don’t.

      Second, Prop. 8 doesn’t discriminate against anyone. *Every* man in California, be he hetero, homo, or anything else, has *precisely* the same rights under Prop. 8. Those rights include the right to marry a woman. Every woman in the state has the right to marry a man, whether she’s a lesbian or not. All of the above being said, I’m in favor of extending the privilege of marriage to gays–but it’s not a right, it never was, and calling it one is a misnomer.

      Third, the issue of gay marriage isn’t a Civil Rights one. This is in part because of what I wrote above: this isn’t a right at all. But worse is the point that I’ve read elsewhere: the GLBT community trying to compare themselves to Freedom Marchers from the sixties is a little ludicrous, especially since Dr. King’s followers didn’t march on churches shouting insults at the worshipers. But further, the GLBT community hasn’t suffered the discrimination Blacks for instance did, at least not for a good long while. These days, if someone sees homophobic activity or speech (real stuff, not a beauty contestant saying she goes to church and doesn’t believe in gay marriage) then they can run for office and take action against that which they abhor. A hundred years ago, a Black person trying something like that would have been lynched. Comparing the two communities only makes gays look self-important and silly.

      Fourth, tolerance is an interesting thing. If you wander our society paying attention to which words are used, you see the word tolerance used a lot. However, tolerance, when applied to opinions, is only extended to those who hold liberal ones. I happen to disagree with Miss Prejean. That doesn’t make her opinion less valid, or less valuable. She gets to express it, and frankly I don’t see the vile homophobia and hate that everyone else here is claiming to see. Comparing her with a racist is disingenuous: she isn’t a racist, and made it pretty clear in her statement that she’s not a homophobe either. Somehow, these days, tolerance tends to mean “accepting all opinions from those with liberal points of view.” Not very inclusive, in my opinion.

      Fifth, the use of epithets, the B word and the C word and the N word and the F word and so forth, are immensely silly. I’ve always held the opinion that when such a word is used in a conversation or argument, you learn a great deal more about the speaker than the subject. Frankly my opinion of them always drops considerably. My opinion of Hilton was always low (he’s essentially a gossip columnist who runs a website, a sort of cyber-bottom-feeder). Now it’s fallen to subterranean.

      Sixth, the GLBT community needs to learn to discuss these issues with the rest of the world in a civil manner. I know that in the past conservatives and homophobes weren’t in the least civil. The difficulty here is that you’re never going to convince that homophobic group to change their minds. Thing is, there aren’t that many of them. Instead, there are a *lot* of people who are essentially neutral on the subject, and so far all the GLBT community has done is call everyone who differs from them, even in a civil tone, a hate-filled vicious homophobic bigot. Does anyone imagine that calling someone that will change their minds about anything at all? The idea that once you call someone that, they’ll change their minds and support you, is downright silly. The longer accusations are made, the more solidified the sides are going to be. Gays won’t be on the winning side of this one, as the two sides line up now. You guys lost an argument in California, where you should have won easily. It’s one of the most liberal states in the Union, and it voted against you. Why would that be? Could it be you screwed up? Naaaah, just more homophobia, from hate-mongers who you, in turn, hate with all your hearts.

      Lastly, is Perez Hilton the best you folks can do, in the way of a public spokesperson or front guy. I’ve seen Rachel Maddow, she’s kind of fun at times. I gather Velez-Mitchell, the CNN anchor, actually defended Hilton’s nasty invective, saying that being nice didn’t get the Civil Rights movement or the suffragettes anywhere. There’s that comparison with people who suffered real discrimination again (when was the last time a gay person was denied the right to vote?). Who else do you folks have? Carson from Queer Eye? Neil Patrick Harris? You need someone who can put opinions forward without being snide or nasty, and make some sense. It’d be nice to see the debate take a civil turn, for once.

      Sorry I went on for this long, but I’ve had this on my chest for a while, and I needed to say this.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 6:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @DavidN:

      “Second, Prop. 8 doesn’t discriminate against anyone. *Every* man in California, be he hetero, homo, or anything else, has *precisely* the same rights under Prop. 8. Those rights include the right to marry a woman. Every woman in the state has the right to marry a man, whether she’s a lesbian or not. All of the above being said, I’m in favor of extending the privilege of marriage to gays–but it’s not a right, it never was, and calling it one is a misnomer.”

      I hear this argument a lot, and it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. This would be like saying, in a state where hypothetically the religion of Judaism was disallowed to be practiced, that Jews have freedom of religion because they’re free to practice Christianity.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 7:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @DavidN:

      First, let me say this: no one, hetero or homo or anyone else, has a *right* to get married. It’s simply not the case. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. You have the right to speak frankly to your sister, but you don’t have the right to marry her. Marriages have to be approved by the state (with licenses and so forth) in ways that most other rights don’t.

      Well, regarding the right to marry, the Supreme Court disagrees. Loving v. Virginia (1967) (fundamental right to marry regardless of race), Zablocki v Redhail (1978)(fundamental right to marry subject to “rigorous scrutiny”), Turner v Safley (1987) (striking down regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying). See also Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (right of unmarried couples to contraception), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)(marital privacy rights include right to contraception), which undercuts any claim that this right should be restricted to couples that procreate.

      Second, Prop. 8 doesn’t discriminate against anyone. *Every* man in California, be he hetero, homo, or anything else, has *precisely* the same rights under Prop. 8. Those rights include the right to marry a woman. Every woman in the state has the right to marry a man, whether she’s a lesbian or not. All of the above being said, I’m in favor of extending the privilege of marriage to gays–but it’s not a right, it never was, and calling it one is a misnomer.

      Well hell, the Texas sodomy laws only prohibited a man from sleeping with another man and a woman from sleeping with another woman. Everyone had the exact same “right” to have sex with members of the opposite sex. Surely that law wasn’t discriminatory, right? Oops: Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (right to sexual privacy encompasses consenting, non-commercial, non-incestuous sex between same-sex couples).

      But worse is the point that I’ve read elsewhere: the GLBT community trying to compare themselves to Freedom Marchers from the sixties is a little ludicrous, especially since Dr. King’s followers didn’t march on churches shouting insults at the worshipers. But further, the GLBT community hasn’t suffered the discrimination Blacks for instance did, at least not for a good long while. These days, if someone sees homophobic activity or speech (real stuff, not a beauty contestant saying she goes to church and doesn’t believe in gay marriage) then they can run for office and take action against that which they abhor. A hundred years ago, a Black person trying something like that would have been lynched. Comparing the two communities only makes gays look self-important and silly.

      OK, here are some of the things that happened (and still happen) to gays in the US and across the globe that never happened to racial minorities:

      -Rejected by their own family members
      -Subject to “conversion therapy” to change their sexual orientation
      -Committed in psychiatric institutions as “sex offenders”
      -Criminal laws targeting sex between members of the same race, with penalties up to and including death

      And today, in most of the US, gay men and lebians can still be fired for being gay, they can still be kicked out of their apartments for being gay, they’re routinely denied custody of their children for being gay, etc.

      Jews never faced (in the US) the same kind of discrimination faced by black Americans. Women never faced it, either. So what? Is the fact that there is a difference that relevant?

      And really, give me a break. Over half the states have passed draconian marriage amendments, going well beyond marriage. Virginia purports to invalidate contracts between same-sex couples.

      There’s that comparison with people who suffered real discrimination again (when was the last time a gay person was denied the right to vote?).

      Colorado tried, in 1992, when they passed Amendment 2. It identified gays as a class an then promptly removed any claim of discrimination we might have on that basis. So if someone, say, a poll worker, denied you your right to vote and you sued over it, you would have had no right to make such a claim under Colorado law. The Supreme Court invalidated that one.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 9:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      To all the closeted “ex-gay” homophobes in here who try to pass off as straights to agitate and spew their crap….if you think procreating or breeding in your case defines marriage, then you better start going after all the hetero couples who choose not to breed or can’t and ban them from marrying along with all the older people beyond child bearing years. Last time I checked, civil marriage is about loving someone first and foremost, breeding is not a mandate or a requirement either. Using the breeder mantra doesn’t cut it anymore, and its a very weak argument. You either ban everyone who doesn’t or won’t breed or shove your bible up your ass. What is it exactly you breeders are afraid of? Seven countries now allow same-sex civil marriage and the sky hasn’t fallen in nor has it affected anyone’s marriage. How would it affect yours, explain?

      Apr 28, 2009 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      Well, regarding the right to marry, the Supreme Court disagrees. Loving v. Virginia (1967) (fundamental right to marry regardless of race), Zablocki v Redhail (1978)(fundamental right to marry subject to “rigorous scrutiny”), Turner v Safley (1987) (striking down regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying). See also Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (right of unmarried couples to contraception), and Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)(marital privacy rights include right to contraception), which undercuts any claim that this right should be restricted to couples that procreate.

      Do not forget Baker v. Nelson (1971).

      Fifth, the use of epithets, the B word and the C word and the N word and the F word and so forth, are immensely silly. I’ve always held the opinion that when such a word is used in a conversation or argument, you learn a great deal more about the speaker than the subject. Frankly my opinion of them always drops considerably. My opinion of Hilton was always low (he’s essentially a gossip columnist who runs a website, a sort of cyber-bottom-feeder). Now it’s fallen to subterranean.

      Read The Stentorian for information on how to run a propoganda campaign.

      My opinion of Hilton was always low (he’s essentially a gossip columnist who runs a website, a sort of cyber-bottom-feeder). Now it’s fallen to subterranean.

      Why was Hilton chosen as a judge?

      They might as well have chosen Shirley Phelps-Roper.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 10:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Michael Ejercito: Hmmm….a summary opinion, decided before the standard of review began to develop on sexual orientation, before Bowers or Lawrence, or Romer…a decision that must be limited to its facts when cited as precedent….a decision nearly forty years old….hmmm….

      Judging by your blog posts, you’d have said the same thing about Bowers when Lawrence was being decided.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 11:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      a decision nearly forty years old

      Loving v. Virginia is more than forty years old. The age of a case has no bearing on its precedential value.

      Baker was cited in Wilson v. Ake , Morrison v. Sadler , In re Kandu , Hernandez v Robles , Citizens For Equal Protection v Bruning, Anderson v King County , and other cases.

      From Hernandez v. Robles

      Four years after Loving, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Minnesota’s marriage laws in the face of a challenge brought by same-sex couples (Baker v Nelson, 291 Minn 310 [1971], app dismissed 409 US 810 [1972]). The Court rejected the argument that the Federal Due Process Clause encompassed a right to marry that extended to same-sex couples, noting that in Loving and its other privacy cases the U.S. Supreme Court had recognized that “[t]he institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis” (id. at 312). The U.S. Supreme Court summarily dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question” (409 US 810 [1972]). Under Supreme Court decisional law, as far as lower courts are concerned, “summary dismissals are . . . to be taken as rulings on the merits . . . in the sense that they rejected the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction and left undisturbed the judgment appealed from” (Washington v Confed. Bands & Tribes of Yakim Indian Nation, 439 US 463, 477 n 20 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] [1979]) and “lower courts are bound by summary decisions . . . until such time as the [Supreme] Court informs them that they are not” (Hicks v Miranda, 422 US 332, 344-345 [1975] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Thus, with respect to the Federal Due Process Clause, we must presume that Loving did not expand the fundamental right to marry in the manner suggested by plaintiffs in the cases before us.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Michael Ejercito: State court cases that don’t involve the 14th amendment. I could just as easily cite the Iowa, California and Connecticut decisions.

      Loving has never been called into question; the decisions in Romer and Lawrence do call Baker into question.

      DOMA is being challenged right now, and I expect those plaintiffs to appeal if they lose in the District of Massachusetts.

      So we shall see. How much confidence do you have in Justice Kennedy?

      Apr 28, 2009 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      State court cases that don’t involve the 14th amendment.

      Those court cases do involve the fourteenth amendment, otherwise they would not have cited Baker .

      the decisions in Romer and Lawrence do call Baker into question.

      Neither Romer nor Lawrence dealt with the issue of marriage.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @Michael Ejercito: No, you need to actually read those cases (and perhaps go to law school) to understand what the courts are doing there. One of those cases I recognize as federal from the 8th Circuit (do you even know which one that is, btw?); Hernandez, however, involved a challenge based on the state’s constitution, not the federal constitution. So no, it didn’t involve the 14th amendment. It was cited as persuasive authority only.

      Neither Romer nor Lawrence dealt with the issue of marriage.

      No, but neither determined the standard of review that would apply to sexual orientation, because in both cases the court determined that the legislation would not pass rational basis review, which means that there was no appropriate conceivable reason for the legislation.

      If sexual orientation is subject to even intermediate scrutiny, all of those marriage laws go by the wayside.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      The reason the deeply closeted homophobic ex-gays post here is really quite obvious. They’re that desperate so they come here to try to stir up trouble. Clearly they haven’t succeeded because they are far outnumbered and nobody agrees with them. Further, they know we’re winning, slowly but surely, but they will never admit it let alone accept it.

      Seven western countries, and now four states allowing same-sex marriage seems pretty clear to me where its heading. The trend will continue probably in Western Europe at a faster pace than in the U.S. The U.S. won’t be able to hold out because there are economic reasons that will also play an important role especially in the areas of multinational corporations that hire gay married people from countries that allow marriage equality. There will eventually have to be reciprocity with the U.S. if it wants to compete in a global economy.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      OK, I wrote that long post here, and people challenged much of what I wrote, missed some things and misinterpreted a few others, and so I feel the need to respond.

      First, I never said anything about marriage being restricted to one man and one woman for the reason of procreation. My wife and I married late enough in life that we never planned to have children, and things went according to plan. I have no problem with people getting married not planning to procreate. Two of my uncles got married under such circumstances, and both were pretty religious. No one said anything about either marriage. The issue isn’t whether a couple can procreate (in my mind anyway) it’s whether they have a right or a privilege.

      Second, everyone seems to have missed that I said that I would like to extend this privilege to gay couples. I just don’t think it’s a right; I also think that the gay community focusing on extending their rights induces “rights fatigue” among the rest of the population, which has heard endlessly about how everyone has the right to do pretty much everything.

      Third, one fellow challenged my assertion that no one has the right to get married with a slew of legal decisions that invalidated laws prohibiting such things as interracial marriage. Unfortunately for him, there are Constitutional amendments requiring equal treatment for members of various racial groups; to my knowledge there isn’t similar protection in the Constitution or its amendments for you guys. Much of the gay community, when confronted with such a statement, essentially say, “Yes, but there *should* be such protections, so let’s act like they’re there, and make arguments based on them.” Unfortunately, this only rarely works in the courts, and even then the decisions get overturned on appeal. Ditto the argument that saying that every man has the right to marry a woman is similar to allowing everyone, Christian or not, to attend a Christian church. The Bill of Rights specifically protects Freedom of Religion (it’s the first thing in the first amendment), while there’s no such protection for gays. Sorry, maybe you could make an argument that such protections *should* be there, but they aren’t.

      Fourth, no one addressed my fundamental assertion on this issue, that marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. A citizen’s interactions with his/her government tend to fall into three categories: rights, privileges, and duties. In the modern age, people have tended to conflate the latter two into the first, with (to my mind and that of many conservatives) disastrous results. Rights include things like speech, the press, and assembly. Essentially, the government is prohibited from doing anything other than regulating these activities for the purpose of public safety (You can’t have a thousand people freely assemble in your living room). Privileges are such things as marriage and voting. If you move from one residence to another, and don’t re-register to vote, you lose the privilege of voting. Ex-convicts can lose the right permanently, but of course they still have the right to freedom of speech, for instance, and can go to any church they wish. Duties are things such as jury service, military service, etc. No one has the right to serve in the military, for instance. A blind person can say anything they wish, but no one’s going to give them a fighter plane to fly. Marriage is a privilege, with some equal protection rights attached, sure, but still a privilege.

      Lastly, the issue of whether one form of discrimination (against blacks, women, Jews, whatever) is worse than another (against gays, for instance). This is difficult, because you almost inevitably start out comparing the proverbial apples with oranges. Having said that, the one fellow asserted that discrimination against gays was bad because of the following list:

      -Rejected by their own family members
      -Subject to “conversion therapy” to change their sexual orientation
      -Committed in psychiatric institutions as “sex offenders”
      -Criminal laws targeting sex between members of the same race, with penalties up to and including death

      I think we can dismiss the last two items: we’re talking about U.S. laws here, and in my understanding all laws prohibiting gay sex have been invalidated here. In Iran, sure, but there religious discrimination is rampant, so is gender discrimination, and a host of other things. We’re talking about U.S. laws. As to the others, I don’t see how we’re going to legislate family dynamics or dysfunction. If your family has rejected you for being gay, I am sorry for it; I would speak to them if the issue came up and I thought it appropriate; but no one can make your family accept you, and frankly such things aren’t restricted to gays. My mother never really understands me, and I’m heterosexual. The “conversion therapy” point is interesting, but unless there’s a place in the states where such things are done compulsorily, I think we can reject it too. If someone wants to voluntarily enter a program, to cure themselves of anything (being gay, smoking, whatever) it’s their business, and none of mine, or frankly anyone else’s. My point is that when the Gay Pride parade marches through a city near you, Bull Connor and his deputies with the dogs, fire hoses, and nightsticks are nowhere to be found. Gay people are discriminated against, sure…but such discrimination is done in a more subtle, and less violent fashion, for the most part. It happens in the open, sometimes, and when it does I’m all for confronting those who discriminate; but that doesn’t make this the sixties, with freedom rides and attack dogs.

      As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation. Period.

      Lastly, I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve been included in the “closeted ex-gay” category or not, but frankly I find that whole argument/accusation incredibly lame. If that’s the best you can do, you need to go to debate school or something. A Larry Craig-like denial just makes the person accused look silly. It’s the functional equivalent of the old question “When did you stop beating your wife?” Clever underhanded tactic, but meaningless if we’re trying to get anywhere in such a discussion.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @DavidN:

      “Privileges are such things as marriage and voting.

      As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation.”

      On the one hand you’re saying that voting is a privilege, on the other, a right. Which is it, pal? You contradict yourself.

      You conveniently wiggle out of the procreation defining marriage mantra that right wingers use to deny marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is the mantra of the Grand Obstructionist Party. You’ll not wear us down with your arguments. We see through you. Change is coming whether you like it or not and we see through the desperation that drives you to post on a gay blogsite, frequently. Why don’t you spend more time among the straight anti same sex marriage haters instead, you have far more in common with them.

      Folks, I wouldn’t mind betting that some of them are paid shills from the ex-gay ministries and other right wing cults with the tacit support of the GOP.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 7:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Robert, NYC: This DavidN is no different than a pro-segregation American circa 1962. His time in history is almost over and he knows it so all he can do is have his day in the sun of discrimination where he will try to be as bigoted as possible and spout propaganda he does not even believe to attempt to hurt people. He is a guy who 30 years from now will be lying to his grandchildren or great grand children about how he fully supported gay marriage. Just like a lot of pro-segregation people now lie and rewrite their own personal histories out of shame.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 7:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      Robert, NYC:

      “Privileges are such things as marriage and voting.

      As for Amendment 2, I seriously doubt that anyone would have ever denied a gay person the right to vote, and had the denial upheld by a court; but it’s a moot point since the courts overturned that part of the amendment anyway. You’re making my point for me: no gay person in the country has his right to vote denied because of his sexual orientation.”

      On the one hand you’re saying that voting is a privilege, on the other, a right. Which is it, pal? You contradict yourself.

      Good point, but you’ve basically used semantics to make it sound like I’m contradicting myself, when I’m not. Voting is a privilege. If you go and exercise that privilege, you have a right to be treated the same as anyone else. I believe, and so far no one’s contradicted me, that no one is denied their franchise (note how I avoided using the word “right” this time) because of gender orientation. How would this work, anyway? Would the person at the polling booth exclude those he *thought* looked gay? Sounds pretty unlikely, and frankly paranoid to me.

      @Robert, NYC: This DavidN is no different than a pro-segregation American circa 1962. His time in history is almost over and he knows it so all he can do is have his day in the sun of discrimination where he will try to be as bigoted as possible and spout propaganda he does not even believe to attempt to hurt people. He is a guy who 30 years from now will be lying to his grandchildren or great grand children about how he fully supported gay marriage. Just like a lot of pro-segregation people now lie and rewrite their own personal histories out of shame.

      Ah, where to begin. In the first place, I always *have* supported the extension of the privilege of marriage to gay people. Voted with you guys when the state voted on it back in…whenever it was, ’02 or ’03, and voted against Prop. 8. I am not a bigot (which leads me into the denial thing that I mentioned before) and frankly the discussion here is getting repulsive. I don’t have children, won’t have grandchildren (unless something drastic happens) and frankly wouldn’t lie to them if the circumstances come up. In no way am I a segregationist, and frankly I’m appalled by your accusations.

      I’m trying, admittedly poorly since no one apparently is listening to me, to get you folks to see how you should proceed, so that you can legally get married when you wish to. Screaming epithets at your opponents, telling them their grandchildren will be ashamed of them, etc., is juvenile, obnoxious, and frankly counterproductive. You’re doing yourself considerable harm speaking like that; every time you do so, you push the prospect of legalized gay marriage further away. Keep it up, and eventually a Federal Constitutional Amendment will emerge, and then you’ll have nothing left to appeal.

      Apr 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @DavidN:

      Third, one fellow challenged my assertion that no one has the right to get married with a slew of legal decisions that invalidated laws prohibiting such things as interracial marriage. Unfortunately for him, there are Constitutional amendments requiring equal treatment for members of various racial groups; to my knowledge there isn’t similar protection in the Constitution or its amendments for you guys. Much of the gay community, when confronted with such a statement, essentially say, “Yes, but there *should* be such protections, so let’s act like they’re there, and make arguments based on them.” Unfortunately, this only rarely works in the courts, and even then the decisions get overturned on appeal. Ditto the argument that saying that every man has the right to marry a woman is similar to allowing everyone, Christian or not, to attend a Christian church. The Bill of Rights specifically protects Freedom of Religion (it’s the first thing in the first amendment), while there’s no such protection for gays. Sorry, maybe you could make an argument that such protections *should* be there, but they aren’t.

      Incorrect.

      This is the text of the 14th Amendment:

      Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      It is the interpretation of the courts that tells us what constitutes “due process” and “equal protection.” Despite the laguage, “separate but equal” was the law of the land for about a century after the passage of the 14th. Laws discriminating on the basis of gender were only invalidated beginning in the 1970s, when gender was subject to intermediate scrutiny.

      You contradict yourself. You’re dismissive of sodomy laws (the historic club used to harass and discriminate against gay men in particular), but these were only struck down in 2003, on the basis of the 14th amendment (due process) and laws discriminating against gays were struck down in 1996 (Romer; equal protection).

      So which is it? Does the 14th amendment protect “any person” or not? The language is pretty clear to me.

      Apr 29, 2009 at 9:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      The difficulty with the 14th amendment protections you cite is that they protect life, liberty, and property, in the one case, and equal protection of laws in the other. Which is marriage? It’s not life, not liberty, and not property certainly. It’s also not a protection. I think (I’m not a judge, but so far as I know no judge has agreed with you) it’s none of the above. If it did become one of those, it would require considerable stretching of the law in order to make it one.

      As for sodomy laws, they are of course reprehensible. It’s my understanding that they’re all gone now; if any aren’t gone they should go immediately. My understanding however is that for a considerable while now, they’ve basically been used as a threat: no one actually got arrested, it was just threatened. Regardless, such things should go, of course.

      Besides, you’re still not understanding my point. The constitution has been studied for 220 years now. If you guys suddenly manage to get the Supreme Court to reinterpret *existing* constitutional law to protect yourselves as a minority, no one who doesn’t agree with you 100% will take you, or the court, in the least seriously. It looks like you’re trying to do an end run around the Democratic process, and say to the voters “You voted against us, but your voice is meaningless because we have the courts on our side.” Sort of like the little punk kid who throws rocks at the bigger kid, and when the big guy comes over to beat him up in retaliation, well the little guy has an older brother who protects his brat sibling. The one thing I think you guys have done well is the vote in Vermont, where you won in the legislature, and when the Governor’s veto was overridden, said Governor (a Republican) essentially said everyone needs to get over it and get on with other business. Court decisions, in the court of public opinion, solve nothing; if anything, they’re again counterproductive.

      And you didn’t address my principle point, or one of them, which is that calling opponents the B-word, the c-word, or whatever, even vile homophobes or whatever, is just bad for your image, and doesn’t really do anything to them. Newsweek this week essentially congratulated her and called Hilton an idiot. You think that does you or the cause of gay marriage any good?

      Apr 29, 2009 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      All of you fools toss around these meaningless words like ‘bigot'(comparing homosexual choices to skin color) and ‘homophobe’.

      You do know the word ‘homophobe’ is a paradox, right? We aren’t scared of people like you that perform homosexual acts on each other. ‘Phobia’? Do you honestly think anyone’s scared of those that practice homosexuality?

      We’re simply repulsed. We’re not scared, we’re disgusted. We’re revolted. We find what you do disgusting, morally reprehensible.

      Stop acting like what you choose to do with your bodies makes you special, or that it represents some special ‘essence’.

      You’re just like the rest of us – the difference is you’ve descended into sexual perversion. It’s not like the civil rights movement, where people were dealing with a factor they literally couldn’t choose….um, SKIN COLOR???

      And yet instead we hear this garbage about how this is ‘who you are’, it’s ‘not a choice’, you deserve ‘rights’, blah blah blah.

      Surprisingly, people actually wish to give your bizarre behavior some type of legal recognition. So they say, “Ok, you want ‘rights’? A civil union would give you every single right.”

      And yet civil unions are denied. MARRIAGE is what is wanted.

      What does this tell us? You want the word. You want the name. What you want is moral condoning of your behavior. You know in your hearts that what you are doing is wrong, and yet you want the blessing of the state to rid your conscience of that guilt.

      Don’t think for one minute you’re fooling us with your propaganda, your focus-group phrases, or your ‘jamming’ techniques – it’s always been about moral conditioning. You know that what you are doing with your bodies is a sexual perversion, heck some of you might have even convinced yourself it’s not wrong, and you are turning to the American people, needily wanting their approval, needily wanting them to tell you that what you’re doing is not wrong.

      Give me a fucking break.

      May 3, 2009 at 10:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Bob:

      Ok Bob, so sexual perversion is the domain of gay people? Hmmmm, now let me think. Oh….there was an article in the local newspaper today regarding two Ozarks churches in southwest Missouri that have been accused of ceremonially abusing girls, preparing them for “service to God” by molesting them; the area in question has one of the state’s highest rates of reported child abuse and has had other high-profile abuse cases.

      Three years later, only one of the cases has completely unraveled; the accused individual remains charged, free on bail pending trial. All six defendants involved in the case are related by blood or MARRIAGE, pleaded not guilty. Hearing after hearing was held and many of the 100 or more church members moved away.

      These charges surfaced in 2006 when young women from Grand Valleny Independent Baptist Church North told authorities that they had been sexually abused since the 1970s.

      Raymond Lambert, 54, pastor of the Grand Valley church was charged with molesting two girls with the help of his WIFE, Patty, over a period of 10 years. The girls were told that their bodies were being prepared “for service to God”. Another defendant, also 54 and his brother 56 and his wife were accused of HELPING Lambert abuse a girl.

      Lambert’s uncle, George Otis Johnston and pastor of Grand Valley church in the next county was accused of telling a parishioner he “was ordained by God to fulfill her needs as a woman” and “if she would have sexual intercourse with him that she would remain a virgin and remain pure”. The girl told authorities she refused intercourse but continued to be molested.

      So much for their anti same-sex marriage argument.

      So Bob, that’s one of a myriad example of what breeders like you do and I suppose its ok with you because involves heteros and I supposed that’s not a perversion either.

      What about your straight prostitutes,the breeders who patronize them, sex trafficking of Asian women to the U.S. and elsewhere for purposes of prostitution; all the straight men who cheat on their wives and in some cases fathering children with them; what about that? So much for the sanctity of marriage argument. Are you also aware that rape is overhwelmingly a straight perversion, just look up the statistics on sex crimes?

      You need to look in the mirror a bit more before you start denigrating us and making derogatory comments. Get your own house in order first, you hypocrite. While am at it, what brings a so called “straight” (assuming you really are one) to a gay blogsite? Isn’t that sort of perverted or are you trying to tell us something else? Seems pretty clear to me and others here, you idiot.

      May 4, 2009 at 8:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      “…who senselessly voted for Prop. 8, based on beliefs they clearly had never examined before”

      Overall I thought this was a good post; but there is a strange discordance between the argument that gay marriage supporters should not be demonizing their opponents, and then turning around and basically arguing that anyone who disagrees with you can’t possibly have put any thought into where they stand. That same process is reflected quite a bit in comments.

      A smart man once said, “Most social issues are complex. They don’t distill down into easy talking points nor do they have obvious permanent solutions.” (Oh wait. that was you, in this same post!)

      You talk about how the abortion debate was “flash frozen” because of the court legislating from the bench, but then you turn around and assume that anyone who opposes gay marriage can’t possibly have given it any thought? Whose opinion is flash-frozen here?

      Clearly gay marriage is something you desire, but that doesn’t mean that any opposing opinion is based on hatred or bigotry. There are good solid arguments against gay marriage — some of them quite — dare I say — thoughtful.

      Personally I’ve been “on the fence” for quite a while on the gay marriage issue. It is, like abortion, a more complex issue than you make it.

      May 7, 2009 at 10:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      Stephen, can you elaborate on “good solid arguments against gay marriage”? If its the procreation chestnut, then I know where your argument is going. There are many good arguments to challenge that one too. Now that the move towards full civil marriage is well under way, and considering that seven countries and five states, possibly six in the U.S. are now on board….and continuing to grow, I think the argument against same-sex marriage will grow weaker. Religious and civil marriage are two different vehicles. Nobody is forcing any cult to acknowledge or conduct same-sex marriages though the lies and bigotry perpetrated by the far right seem to be the contrary as we witnessed in that hilarious video distributed by the National Movement on Marriage spreading false information about LGBT people. That kind of misinformation will only polarize the far right and the GOP in general if its serious about appealing to younger voters who are already alienated and not in synch with core republican right wing beliefs. How can you support relgious zealots denigrating,spreading lies, fomenting intolerance and hatred towards us, and we’re supposed to say nothing? Whenever we accuse them of hypocrisy, bigotry and hatred, we’re chastized for it while they play the religious victim card claiming persecution. A bit rich coming from religious cults who’ve been persecuting us for millenia in the name of religion. They can’t have it both ways. They should stay out of politics or face a push by us to remove their non-profit tax-exempt status for starters, then they’ll get a taste of what reverse discrimination is all about. Last time I read the constitution, the rights of the minority cannot be overturned by the tyranny of the majority (mob rule) and must be protected.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      “How can you support religious zealots denigrating,spreading lies, fomenting intolerance and hatred towards us, and we’re supposed to say nothing?”

      That’s a mighty big assumption you’ve made about me there.

      Opposing gay marriage does not equal hatred. Again, so long as you can’t see past that false comparison, your outlook is just as brittle and “frozen” as the abortion debate that you so rightly described.

      I’m generally pro-life (though again, kind of on the fence) but that doesn’t mean I support bombing abortion clinics. Gay bashing exists, but Proposition 8 ain’t it.

      I think you are correct that support for gay marriage is growing. (I’ll get into why I think that is regrettable in a moment….) However, it is for ***exactly that reason*** that the recent political actions of gays is a very bad move — for gays. The venom and McCarthy-ite tactics launched against supporters of Prop 8 in California is going to turn people *against* you. Trying to force change through judicial activism is going to do for this what Roe V Wade did to abortion — make it a bitter political battle that will rage for DECADES. Support is growing as you say. A few more years and you will probably have the changes you want through *legitimate* legislative change.

      Regarding the political front and removing the tax-exempt status of religion — go for it. Charities too — nobody should be tax exempt. I’m a FairTax man myself — I don’t think the government should be picking winners and losers AT ALL.

      May 8, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      Now… having cleared up a whole pile of clutter — you main question: examples of “good solid arguments against gay marriage”.

      First off, as I said, I’m on the fence. I think that at the least we as a society should be very careful about upturning centuries-old social structure. The law of unintended consequences will almost *certainly* rear its head as gay marriage spreads. Traditional marriage has been under attack for decades in this country. Among urban blacks it is almost completely destroyed, and the problems that community struggles with every day are, I believe, strongly related to that change. I think “no fault divorce” is also a part of this problem — it undermines the seriousness of marriage, encouraging people to enter into it without thinking it through. Result: Lots of single-parent children, which study after study has shown to contribute to drug use and other problems.

      Secondly — and this one will no doubt have you howling — there is no argument for gay marriage I have ever heard that does not also apply to polygamy, polyamory, or, for that matter, some guy wanting to “marry” his favorite car. If you look at marriage as simply a contract between two people, then you are right — there is no difference if they are both male, or whatever.

      If, however, you look at marriage as a *social contract*, a lot changes. Marriage is a lot about maintaining the social fabric, and forming familial bonds, and yes, procreation.

      Why then, is homosexuality not a part of the regular social fabric? Well, it is obviously, in the sense that gay people do *exist*. But it’s not, dare I say, “normal”.

      Now of course I have to define “normal”. Homosexuality does exist in nature, obviously. I’m looking at things scientifically — and homosexuality is, in nature, an aberration. Why do I say this? Evolution. Evolution basically has two rules. 1) survive. 2) reproduce. Having a sex drive that attracts you to a partner with whom you can’t possibly reproduce is clearly against evolution. Meaning… it’s not simply another genetic variation; if it were it would have died out before it ever got started. It’s something else.

      So fine. Not normal — does that make it bad? Not at all. When I was in high school I knew a girl who had six toes on each foot. Not the vestigial stub kind of thing — she had the entire structure, including a bone in the foot, to support six toes on each foot. I have no doubt she was born that way, but it is not a “normal” human trait. She was an aberration.

      It is a societal distortion to try to legally declare it as normal — which is exactly what gay marriage is — a legal declaration — a *societal* declaration — that homosexual coupling is a part of the “default” human condition. There are a lot of other things (beyond toe count) that fit this description as well, but none of those that I can think of have the same kind of political implications.

      Imagine a community of six-fingered people demanding that glove makers be legally required to manufacture six-fingered gloves. Yes, they really have six fingers, and yes they really want gloves that fit, but that doesn’t mean their civil rights are violated if Totes only make five-fingered gloves.

      A bit more on the “unintended consequences” problem: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

      May 8, 2009 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      “Last time I read the constitution, the rights of the minority cannot be overturned by the tyranny of the majority (mob rule) and must be protected.”

      Robert — I can’t seem to find that sentence in my copy of the Constitution. Could you please be more specific?

      May 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Some advice, stephen. Don’t use terms that you don’t understand, like evolution. Now look up something called unit of selection, and adaptive advantage.

      May 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      Stephen, actually polygamy is practiced and legal in islamic culture so you can’t paint marriage with the same brush.

      If marriage is also about procreation and the reason that most people oppose same-sex marriage, then they must also ban straight childless couples, those who refuse to procreate and those who can’t. Marriage is primarily about love, first and foremost, procreation is a choice and NOT a requirement nor is it a mandate of CIVIL marriage, nor is there any mention of religion in a civil wedding ceremony. One’s religious convictions and beliefs have absolutely no place in denying civil marriage to same sex couples. States issue marriage licenses, not religious denominations. If someone wants a religious marriage ceremony, let their churches, synagogues and mosques issue them. How would they like it if people opposed religious marriages and tried to get a ballot initiative to ban them? They would be making the same argument that civil marriage supporters have no right imposing their will on religion.

      In-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers are alternatives for hundreds of thousands of opposite sex and same-sex couples in the western hemisphere and probably elsewhere. So your statement that gays can’t procreate, is not altogether true. I suppose you would call these methods of conceiving aberrant or abnormal?

      May 8, 2009 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      My error.

      May 8, 2009 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      “If, however, you look at marriage as a *social contract*, a lot changes. Marriage is a lot about maintaining the social fabric, and forming familial bonds, and yes, procreation.”

      “The law of unintended consequences will almost *certainly* rear its head as gay marriage spreads.”

      So are you implying that same-sex civil marriage would impact the social fabric, in what way? Can you point to any unintended consequences thus far as well as documented evidence to support that claim in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Canada, South Africa, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa?

      There exist thousands of gay parents, many of whom have been married to opposite sex partners, including gay and bisexual widows and widowers who maintain and continue to maintain strong familial, loving bonds with their children. Familial bonding is most definitely not exclusive to heterosexuals.

      May 8, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      @Robert, NYC:

      Not sure what you’re saying about arab cultures. Should we emulate them? Considering they have a tendency to stone homosexuals, I’m guessing that’s not what you want.

      My point about polygamy was that all of the “consenting adults” arguments for gay marriage can be used to argue for polygamous marriage. And polygamous marriage is an exceptionally bad idea. Opening the door to that is one good example of unintended consequences.

      “If marriage is also about procreation and the reason that most people oppose same-sex marriage, then they must also ban straight childless couples, those who refuse to procreate and those who can’t.”

      Or those may just be arguments for banning abortion.

      Not sure why you’re going on about religion, since I’ve made virtually no mention of it. It seems you’re responding to previous arguments you’ve heard, but not ones I made. Regarding “civil unions” vs. “marriage” — the distinction is, in the long run, negligible. It’s semantics. When I talk about “marriage” I am referring to the deeply established social institution, not the religios ceremony.

      “In-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers[...]. I suppose you would call these methods of conceiving aberrant or abnormal?”

      They certainly don’t exist in nature, so I would unhesitatingly call them “unnatural”. Again, does that mean “bad”? No.

      “So your statement that gays can’t procreate, is not altogether true.”

      When a (biological) male is impregnated by sperm from another male, you let me know.

      Sorry couldn’t resist. Snark aside….

      I think that mankind in modern day has become rather hubristic in assuming that nature doesn’t know what it’s doing, and can be perfected and improved by man. As though we, in a few short years, can best the evolutionary process of millions of years.

      As I said, I’m kind of on the fence. The libertarian in me says “Hey, go for it. Mazel Tov.” But the scientist in me says that we should be very careful upsetting a social fabric that has carried us for tens of millennia. Yes that means not everybody gets what they would like.

      What *will* the unintended consequences be? I don’t know. unintended often equals unpredictable. They are rarely instantaneous, and frequently unanticipated. I’ve suggested a few already. Those countries you mentioned haven’t had gay marriage for terribly long; so as examples, they are limited. I guess we’ll all know in about 50 years.

      I’m not gay (obviously) but honestly, even if I were I doubt I would be fighting for gay marriage. I **am** an atheist, a group that in the USA is probably more widely scorned that homosexuals, yet, like homosexuals, hardly downtrodden. As an atheist, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Dawkinses of the world, running around trying to rip any mention of religion out of public discourse. (The Ten Commandments, for example, are a strong historical basis for modern law, and there’s nothing wrong with referencing them in that context in a public display.) I believe what I believe, but I don’t insist on everyone else accepting it.

      May 8, 2009 at 6:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      I would again recommend reading this article. It doesn’t actually take sides, but is an excellent treatise on the unintended consequences of social engineering….

      http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

      May 8, 2009 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Yes, you probably are disgusted by Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley, stephen jay gould, etc, etc, etc. Or, you’re just baffled by them, because you simply don’t understand anything about evolution.

      May 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Are you a randian, too? PUtting your ignorant self in your rightful place would be a total waste of my time. It wouldn’t be the least bit enjoyable talking your absurd arguments and obliterating them…not the least bit.

      May 8, 2009 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But the scientist in me

      LMAO! Oh goodness *dabs eyes*…the scientist in you? “But the frosted side…” ha ha ha ha ha ha…make it stop…

      Do you know what an appeal to ignorance is? Do you know what decision theory is? Do you know what the word “irrational” means?

      May 8, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      Stephen, this will be my last response to you. You seem to come up with an excuse at every provocation to deny same-sex marriage to gay people. You state…”unintended often equals unpredictable”. In this case it means predictable. You know darn well what they are which is why you made that statement to begin with. Its a lame excuse too to say that countries where same-sex marriage is legal haven’t had long to figure out the harmful effects of same-sex marriage. Holland has had it for 8 years or more, I don’t see any negative impact it has had on its society or in any of the remaining 6 countries. Heterosexuals are still getting married there without any repercussions from same-sex couples doing the same. How has it affected anyone’s marriage, where is the evidence and why have there been no government reports?

      By the way, polygamy is permitted in the old and new testaments. The bible allows polygamy in the old testament and in the new testament. The old testament has several references including Exodus 21: 10 which allow a man to marry an infinite number of women without any conditions. Similarly there is not a single verse in the new testament prohibiting polygamy.

      In Matthew 22: 24-29, the Jews referred to Deuteronomy 25:5 (allowing polygamy) and brought it to the attention of Jesus, he did not condemn or prohibit it. “He who created them from the big womb made the male and the female and said “for this course, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. (Matthew 19: 4,5)” is usually quoted to promote monogamy. Some churches and bible scholars have argued that wives in a plural marriage are also “one flesh” with the husband individually. Furthermore, Christ lived 30 years of his life in a society that practised polygamy and never condemned it. Polygamy was actually introduced into the church at the time of Paul to conform to Greco-Roman culture. In that culture, men were monogamous but free to own slaves (girls) and use them for pleasure.

      Truly amazing how religious zealots cherry pick some verses and ignore the rest to justify discrimination against an entire group of people, how convenient. They would do well, including atheists, to consult http://www.fallwell.com for a reality check.

      You claim you’re an atheist and you state…”I’m not gay (obviously) but honestly, even if I were I doubt I would be fighting for gay marriage. I **am** an atheist, a group that in the USA is probably more widely scorned that homosexuals, yet, like homosexuals, hardly downtrodden. As an atheist, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Dawkinses of the world, running around trying to rip any mention of religion out of public discourse. (The Ten Commandments, for example, are a strong historical basis for modern law, and there’s nothing wrong with referencing them in that context in a public display.) I believe what I believe, but I don’t insist on everyone else accepting it.”

      Stephen, how can you claim to be an atheist one minute and defending the ten commandments (religious commandments) in a public display the next? You claim that atheists are more downtrodden than gays? Please! Since when do straight atheists face discrimination in the workplace, housing, serving openly in the military based on their lack of religious beliefs?

      I really don’t think you know what you are, definitely not an atheist. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Atheists wouldn’t support religious marriage because of its origins in Judaism, as are all monotheistic faiths, created by men.

      I’m done, have a good life.

      May 9, 2009 at 8:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      Tank:
      Repeating over and over that I don’t understand evolution is meaningless. Where exactly did I get it wrong? It isn’t actually a terribly complex concept.

      Robert NYC:
      “By the way, polygamy is permitted in the old and new testaments.”

      So???

      “[H]ow can you claim to be an atheist one minute and defending the ten commandments (religious commandments) in a public display the next?”

      Because there is a difference between believing God does not exist, and being anti-religious. I am the former, but not the latter. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, either, but if it makes the kiddies happy, I’m not *against* believing in Santa Claus.

      Specific to public displays:
      Modern law has strong roots in Judeo-Christian religion. As such, the Ten Commandments are a part of the historical formation of modern law, **whether or not God exists***. I’m not saying we should all follow the Ten Commandments, but I have no more problem with a public display of them than I would with a display of the Magna Carta.

      Overall…
      This is probably my last reply as well, so as you say “have a good life.”

      My purpose in arguing here was not to convert anyone — I had no illusions of that. I was simply, (as you can see if you look back at my first comment) responding to the pervasive assumption that any person who doesn’t support gay marriage is either *hateful* or simply hasn’t thought about it. Assuming thoughtlessness of your political opponents is the fast track to underestimating them. You are far better off assuming that at least *some* of them are thoughtful, and entirely sincere, and then trying to really understand where they’re coming from. Your goal in the long run is to change people’s minds, and screaming “bigot!” over and over isn’t the way to do that.

      May 10, 2009 at 1:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      One last thing — I’m most definitely an atheist. I believe specifically in the non-existence of God, gods, spirits, magic, or supernatural powers of any sort. I have believed such for about two decades now — over half my life.

      You seem to assume that this must presuppose certain political views, or some aggressive opposition to those of religious faith. It doesn’t.

      May 10, 2009 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      One last bit I forgot about…

      Robert NYC said:
      “Its a lame excuse too to say that countries where same-sex marriage is legal haven’t had long to figure out the harmful effects of same-sex marriage. Holland has had it for 8 years or more, I don’t see any negative impact it has had on its society[...].”

      Eight years is *nothing* in socio-political terms. It’ll probably be about 40 years before the true implications hit, but by that point they will be irreversible. Specifically, wait until a generation has been born and grown to adulthood without ever having known marriage as an “opposite sex” thing, then wait until *that* generation’s children are of marrying age.

      Will it be a disaster? Well, it doesn’t look like it from here, but I bet a lot of people didn’t foresee the effect that welfare and no-fault divorce would have on marriage either. There’s that silly unintended consequences thing again.

      All I’ve been saying here is we need to be careful about charging ahead with major changes to significant social institutions. Eight years isn’t enough to know.

      May 14, 2009 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      Stephen, this WILL be my LAST response to you. Quite the bullshit please. There has NOT been one reported incident of any negative impact on anyone’s marriage. 8 years or more is long enough to figure that one out. You just don’t want us to have our full equality, you believe in discrimination and that’s your right to believe in it, but the rest of us don’t agree with you.

      If no fault divorce bothers you so much, why aren’t you lobbying to put an end to it? Stop scapegoating and blaming others for the breakdown of straight marriage and stop procreating if you can’t afford it or have no idea how to raise a family. Republicans commit adultery, father children with other women, marry several times, commit incest by marrying first and second cousins (Rudy Giuliani is just one example, first wife was his first cousin, he then had several affairs and married two more times); they also divorce and marry over and over hoping to get it right, just like their fellow religious bigots, and I suppose you would eventually blame that on same-sex marriage in other countries and four U.S. states? You’re an idiot, I’m done.

      May 14, 2009 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      …”quit the bullshit” I meant to have said in previous post.

      May 14, 2009 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      “8 years or more is long enough to figure that one out.”

      Not really. Social constructs have a lot of momentum. Anyone getting married today grew up with traditional marriage as the standard. Gay marriage, where it exists, is a new thing. I’m talking about the change that will happen as we have generations *born* in a time when it existed and was widely accepted. 18-20 years minimum — probably longer than that.

      “If no fault divorce bothers you so much, why aren’t you lobbying to put an end to it?”

      It would probably be best if we hadn’t had it in the first place, but Pandora’s box is very difficult to close once it’s opened. I do sort of like the idea of “covenant” marriages though.

      May 18, 2009 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      So, what if after twenty, thirty years or more, none of the negative aspects of same-sex marriage have resulted as you predict? What if straight divorce rates decline, what if out of wedlock births, abortions decline? What will be your next m.o. to support discrimination against gay people if all of the predictions have failed? So far, they have in only 8 years. Name me one documented instance of a same-sex civil marriage that has impacted the marriage of any straight in a negative manner? Lets see the evidence in the form of government reports.

      If you want to ban divorce, go ahead, the religious cults and bigots who support them will back you up to the hilt as will the republican party and a handful of conservatives in the democratic party. I also have a suggestion when you start to do it, make sure that no divorced person can ever marry again even if they have children and while you’re at it, make absolutely sure that all adulterers and violent spousal abusers are equally banned from divorce. The latter would drastically eliminate the need for battered spouses to seek shelter.

      May 18, 2009 at 1:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Robert, NYC: is absolutely right.

      Civil unions and civil partnerships are a second class form of marriage for citizens deemed unworthy of full civil rights by bigots like the Bushes, der Papenfuehrer Ratzi, the Clintons, Dobson and Obama – all members of christer cults.

      Only full marriage rights for same sex couples will do. Despite the rearguard defense of apologists for bigotry like Stephen R. the fight for same sex marriage rights is enjoying success after success.

      May 19, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill, thank you. The reason we’re seeing more resistance to SSM is the very success we’re now seeing in six states and its not going to stop as more countries in Europe get on board. They can protest all they want, the tide is turning against bigotry. The more these right wingers and religious cultists spew their hatred, the more alienated the obstuctionist party of NO becomes irrelevant. Let them continue, its only going to alienate the younger generation to support them. Already, they’re at their lowest rate in the popularity polls….21% or less describe themselves as republican, the lowest in over 25 years and declining. They’ll remain in political exile for many years unless they become an all inclusive party and I don’t see that happening. Michael Steele is another form of window dressing, the male version of Palin. He’s going nowhere.

      May 20, 2009 at 8:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      A landslide majority of Americans agree with those religious cultists and right wingers.

      Amendment 2 in Florida was passed with over sixty percent of the vote, an amendment that forbade the state from recognizing civil unions . Florida must be some far right-wing state, right ?

      May 20, 2009 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Michael Ejercito: is wrong on both counts. In most polls I’ve seen our numbers in favor of SSM have gone from the low 30’s to roughly 50/50 since 2004.

      What tips the balance agianst us is the fact that both parties are run by bigots like McCain and Obama. Both hinged their campaigns on opposition to SSM to capture and galvanize the bigot vote. In 2000 and 2004 a biogt named Bush won the pandering competition. In 2008 it was a bigot named Obama.

      His infamous anti-LGBT slogan ‘gawd’s in the mix’ motivated bigots to vote against us in big numbers in Califrnia, Arizona and Florida.

      To claim that we don’t have a chance is just an excuse for inaction.

      May 20, 2009 at 8:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill, I agree with that. For Obama to say he’s for equality is a bold-faced lie. How can he be if he doesn’t believe in marriage equality for LGBT citizens? Of all people, a lawyer such as Obama knowing that the Warren court declared that “separate is never equal”, now supports segregation which is what civil unions are. Seven countries realized that and six states in the U.S. How much clearer does it get?

      May 21, 2009 at 7:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      @Stephen R:

      …”but I bet a lot of people didn’t foresee the effect that welfare and no-fault divorce would have on marriage either. There’s that silly unintended consequences thing again.”

      So Stephen, who is to blame for that, Gays? Adultery, philandering, fathering children in and outside of marriage, sometimes with several different women different women….that’s been going on for millenia and way before marriage equality was a dot on the landscape?

      The fact of the matter is, those “silly unintended consequences thing again” are all down to you straights. We didn’t cause divorces and we still don’t, nor did we have any impact on single women getting pregnant, your fellow breeders do that with impunity. So,why don’t you and your ilk address that issue and get it resolved once and for all? The biggest threat to marriage are the very people you accuse, the straights who legislated for no fault divorce and those who engage in it, not us. Skew it whatever way you wish, the argument against same-sex marriage is therefore lost.

      May 21, 2009 at 8:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Stephen R
      Stephen R

      “I bet a lot of people didn’t foresee the effect that welfare and no-fault divorce would have on marriage either.”

      “So Stephen, who is to blame for that, Gays?”

      Did I at any point say that gays are directly responsible for no-fault divorce? Nope. So why are you responding as though I did? (Ditto your repeated flagellation against religion when I’ve made no religious arguments.)

      Your blind conviction that there is no possible argument in opposition to your own views is the very *definition* of “closed-mindedness”.

      Which is exactly the point I’ve argued since my first comment.

      See, I could go to an anti-gay site and argue *for* gay marriage just as readily as I’ve argued *against* it here. As I’ve said there are arguments on both sides.

      However, trying to have the discussion with you, Robert, is like trying to discuss religion with a fire & brimstone Bible-beater. There’s no point, ‘cuz he’s Just Right and I’m Just Wrong and clearly I’m going to Hell because I don’t see the light.

      And in that sense, you work *against* your own cause. By jumping up and down and screaming “Bigot!” at anyone who doesn’t “see the light” on gay marriage, you turn *away* those you should be working to convince.

      So go ahead with more broad assumptions about what I’m going to do in 20 or 30 years, because *clearly*, in your religion, my arguments can’t possibly be based on anything but blind hatred, right?

      May 29, 2009 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      The fun part of all of this is what you folks can’t see, with regards to the whole of the issue. When you’re playing in the political arena, one fault pretty much everyone often falls into is seeing things as they *want* to see them, rather than as they are. So in the gay community, *everyone* who isn’t a strong supporter of gay marriage is the reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler or Bull Connor. Vile, mealy-mouthed, vicious, mean, nasty bigots, the lot of them. Funny how people don’t like to be described in such terms, isn’t it?

      Meanwhile, let me explain reality to everyone. Most of Christian American sees gay marriage as a distraction from important issues. There are religious ideologues, sure, but they really represent a tiny fraction of the population, as a whole. *However*, there is a much larger proportion of the population who are essentially apathetic about the issue, but who see protecting their church from the government as essential. Threaten them with the loss of tax exempt status unless the Church advocates something (ANYTHING) and they’ll come out in droves to vote against this in any way conceivable. Try and pass laws to make religious people do something they don’t want to do, and you mobilize your opposition rather better than any religious zealot on the right is capable of. So when the guy who runs eHarmony gets sued for not matching up gay couples (because there are apparently *no* gay dating websites!!!) everyone gets the message: tolerance runs one way, and one way only. Everyone must tolerate gays, and they can’t be expected to tolerate anyone who disagrees, in any measure at all.

      You guys keep crowing about the court decisions that have come down in your favor, without looking at a map, and thinking about things demographically a little bit. True, gay marriage has been legalized in six states. There are a few flies in the ointment here, though, and you folks have the incredibly silly habit of doing an end zone dance on the field when you haven’t scored yet. Exactly *two* of the states have legalized gay marriage through a vote of the people or the state legislature. Those are the only states that count, in my mind. I’m a conservative, and any conservative will tell you that judges can be fickle, and endlessly, fiendishly convoluted when it comes to logic, and their interpretation of the Constitution. If they grant you legalized marriage today, in a decade another judge can just as easily revoke it. In the meanwhile, the state legislature or the initiative process can be used to pass Constitutional amendments at the state level, which invalidate the court’s ruling. That’s what happened here in California. Now you need to get either the Federal courts to invalidate the Amendment because it violates the Federal constitution (highly unlikely, overconfident pronouncements from various gay legal scholars notwithstanding) or get another amendment, reversing the first, passed. In all probability, Iowa will pass an amendment in the next year or so striking down the gay marriage ruling there. You’ll all call everyone who voted to strike it down bigots, and voters in Nebraska will watch, decide you’re all a bunch of obnoxious bullies, and vote with their ministers when the issue comes up there.

      Thing is, two states, or six, doesn’t solve your problem. A decade ago, I would never have said what I am going to say now. Half a decade ago, when President Bush was running for reelection and energizing his base by proposing the Defense of Marriage Act, I said (and I still think, at the time) that he had no chance of getting it passed, knew it, and was semi-cynically manipulating religious conservatives within his party. If you guys keep calling the Carrie Prejeans of the world bigots, you might wind up driving large numbers of people into the other camp. The result could be the passage of an amendment like the one Bush proposed, which would mean that it wouldn’t matter how many state supreme courts legalize gay marriage: the Constitution trumps state Constitutions where they conflict, and there’s no way to appeal an amendment. The only thing you can do is repeal it with another amendment…which has only really happened once (prohibition). Do you guys really want to go down this road?

      May 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavidN
      DavidN

      Oh, and I should mention: what I’ve been trying to say here is this: if you’re trying to legalize gay marriage, you folks are doing a downright crappy job of making your case. If you had any sense at all (which I think some gay people do…it’s just that the people in charge don’t) you’d run your campaigns completely differently. Stay away from words like civil rights, rights in general, oppression, that sort of thing. Write the law so that civil authorities (who perform civil ceremonies) are required to perform them for gay couples also (with perhaps a provision allowing the fellow who’s religious, and been in the job for most of his career, to pass and let someone else do it). Stipulate that the law doesn’t force any religious organization to do anything it wants, or that it believes is against its beliefs. If a church wants to perform gay marriages, it can; if it doesn’t want to, it doesn’t have to, and nothing in the law can force it to change its mind. Guarantee religious freedom, even for those who disagree with you. If you do *that*, you could, if you played your cards right, shave off 20-30% of religious conservatives, and a whole bunch of moderates. Act like you mean it (hard, I know, when you’re opposed by such low-brow beings, so intellectually and culturally inferior) and you might even win the argument, in a majority of states. Hell, you might even win that one in California.

      But I assume I’m talking to the wall, right? Nobody’s going to actually try and act intelligently, when you can join a crowd that shouts racist epithets at Black passers by, and then Bigot at Mormons. By the way, why haven’t any of you picketed the Muslims? They want to burn you at the stake, never mind keep you from getting married…

      May 29, 2009 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.